Commons Sitting of 19 April 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What reply has been given by the Government to the Letter from the Roman Catholic Bishops,

1975
dated 18th March, 1860, with reference to National Education in Ireland?
MR. CARDWELLstated that no reply had been sent except an acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter.

On Motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply,
OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HORSMAN, in calling the attention of the House to the state of our relations with foreign Powers and to ask some explanations on the subject from the Government, said:—Sir, I believe it is generally acknowledged that at the present moment the Government and nations of central Europe are more disturbed and alarmed than they have been since the beginning of the century. Every Continental country exposed to incursions from France is trembling with fear. England also has her interests to protect, her responsibilities to discharge, and her solemn engagements under stringent treaties are thickening and pressing upon her. Many anxious eyes are turned to England from the menaced States, inquiring their fate, which they feel to hang upon the fidelity of England to her engagements. Such are the feelings which pervade Europe at this moment. The nations are trembling, time is progressing, events are marching; and the very Power which is attempting to alter the face of Europe is making all speed to anticipate and shut out every possible combination for a successful resistance. In these circumstances I feel anxious, as far as I can do so without discussing the past policy of the Cabinet, or embarrassing pending negotiations, to ask for some explanations, which I hope and believe will tend to show that the Parliament and the Government of this country are of one mind as to our present position and duties; and that they may cordially and heartily unite in a direct, clear, and unmistakeable announcement of that which the world has a right to know—the policy which England, from a regard to her own interests and honour, is now determined to pursue in the face of these grave and threatening events. Just before the adjournment for the Easter recess there was laid on the table the reply of M. Thouvenel to a Despatch written by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the 22nd of March. In that
  1976
  document the French Minister states that the Despatch of the English Cabinet to which he replies makes no change in the relations subsisting between the two Governments, and particularly that it conveys no protest against the annexation of Savoy. We have reason to believe that this interpretation of the Despatch of the 22nd of March is not acquiesced in by the British Cabinet; and the first question, therefore, which I wish to ask is whether the Despatch of M. Thouvenel has been replied to, and, if so, whether consistently with the public interest, a copy of the reply can be laid on the table? I would ask, further, what is the exact state now of the question of the annexation of Savoy? Is that question still in any way pending as a discussion between the two Governments, or do we leave it where M. Thouvenel in his last Despatch has placed it, and are we content to consider it a settled question, as to which nothing further can be said? My third and last question is one of still greater importance—one upon which not only have we to come to an understanding with our own Government, but upon which our Government should also come to an understanding with foreign Powers. It is this—what is the principle upon which our policy is to be conducted with reference to those treaty obligations which we have incurred in the general interest and for the common safety of Europe? Are we to set out by assuming that the aggressions of Prance in Savoy and Switzerland are mere accidental and exceptional occurrences, the adjustment of which will be followed by the re-establishment of peace, security, and confidence; or are we to take them, as we know they have been taken by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as indications and portions of a deliberate policy on the part of France, of which the logical consequences are to be looked for in the harassing and unsettling of other parts of Europe? This last question is important, because there has been an impression, produced by some of the earlier despatches and speeches of our Government, that the policy of England has alternated between these two views. When the Savoy difficulty first arose the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs addressed a Despatch, which was much approved and highly commended, to our Ambassador at Paris, in which he warned the Emperor of the French that the Savoy question was one interesting to the

  1977
  whole of Europe and calculated to create general alarm and apprehension. But from causes to which I need not now refer that question appears—perhaps only appears—to have subsided into a settlement in which Sardinia and France are the only Powers that are held to have an interest. The Swiss difficulty succeeded; and when it arose we felt there could be no doubt as to the consequences that would follow. The graver character of that aggression was announced authoritatively in this House. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with a fervour which could not be mistaken, reminded us that the independence of Switzerland was a matter of European guarantee, and, describing in firm and forcible language the restless and encroaching policy of France, he gave us to understand, amid the acclamations of the House, that our close and special alliance with that aggressive Power had come to an end. But in a short time rumours were set afloat by those to whom this change of policy was unpalatable, and who desired to do what was agreeable to France, perhaps to promote what had been designed by France, that the question of the independence of Switzerland had also subsided into a mere local quarrel; that the parties to that quarrel had settled it out of court, and that a compromise had been effected, by which France was to take only a portion of what she had determined to seize, and Switzerland was to be allowed to retain the remainder. We have happily had since a complete refutation of these sinister rumours. But it was natural to suppose that a small State, threatened by an overpowering neighbour, and abandoned by those on whose support she had a right to rely, should very gladly make a compromise by surrendering part of her dominions to retain the rest. In those who look at these things from a mere mercantile point of view, this was a pardonable supposition; but those who so judged the Swiss very much mistook the character of that people. They are a brave and patriotic, although they may appear rather a primitive race, because they are so uncivilized that love of country, love of liberty, with them is still a passion; and so benighted that they have not yet learnt to put freedom into one scale and bales of merchandise into another, and to sell the soul of their nation for improved trade returns. As they are not reigned over by a Prince who is ready to abandon them, or governed by an unscrupulous Minister willing to barter them
  1978
  away like sheep, they may still escape the degradation which was designed for them, and the Government of England may not be a patty to a second crime. But I have said that M. Thouvenel states that the despatch of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs did not amount to a protest. No one who reads the despatch can fail to see that the French Minister anxiously labours to establish that fact. He attaches great importance to it; but not more than it deserves, for it would be difficult to exaggerate the immense advantage which is given to the present policy and the future designs of France by the absence of a protest; and more difficult still to overrate the additional danger entailed upon Europe by the impunity allowed to the first open act of French territorial aggression. In passing I would make only one remark upon the despatch of the noble Lord—that I saw with regret that, when he stated so clearly, so forcibly, and so convincingly, the case against the Emperor of the French, he stopped short of the conclusion to which his own arguments so inevitably led. M. Thouvenel quickly declared that there was no protest. But why was there no protest? A protest was not only the natural conclusion to the noble Lord's own reasoning, but was the natural proceeding in the face of such an outrage on the public law and opinion of Europe? I have heard some persons say, "What is the use of a protest? If you do not mean to follow it up by action, it is only a confession of your anger and your weakness, meaning nothing and effecting nothing; and what an idle matter it is to protest at this time of day against the violation of the Treaties of 1815, after the violation of them has been so commonly permitted!" I demur to both of those conclusions as being entirely false. In the first place, with respect to a protest, I have always understood that, instead of a protest being a thing to be followed up by action, a protest was a substitute for action; and that it was when you are not prepared to follow up your objections by war that you made a protest, in order that your inaction might not be taken for acquiescence. The value of a protest is the value attached to it by the usages of Europe. A protest once entered against an Act is a precaution against the Act being established as a precedent, and a protest not entered is to be interpreted into acquiescence. Thus a protest becomes a matter of great importance, and not a mere idle

  1979
  ceremony. The public proclamation of a principle by means of a protest against the violation of treaties, and the deliberate warning of the consequences which would follow from further Acts of a similar kind, become of importance in the eyes of Europe, and is a deliberate warning that the protest may be followed up by more effective measures which the public safety might require against the public enemy. When I am told that the Treaties of 1815 have been before violated, I would again ask, has the principle of those treaties ever been violated before? What was that principle? It was protection to Europe against French aggression. Those treaties bound together the allied Powers against the public enemy, who had overrun the Continent, pillaged every capital, shaken every throne, and inflicted countless miseries on every population; and the trampled nations of the Continent, led by England, combining and overthrowing their oppressor, framed the treaties for their own future safety against the traditional policy of France; and it was the deliberate judgment of Europe that fixed the boundaries and formed the frontiers of that country with the one sole aim and object of confining France within her own limits, and of providing effectual security to Europe against the perpetually recurring danger from the insatiable restlessness of French ambition. That was the principle of the Treaties of 1815. and when has that principle ever been violated before? It is because that principle never has been violated that France has always chafed under those treaties as humiliations imposed on her, and the present Emperor of the French always encouraged the idea that it was his work to efface those marks of French dishonour; and these are the first steps in that direction; and it is this principle of limiting France within a frontier defined by the unanimous judgment of Europe that is now for the first time assailed and overridden by the Emperor of the French. What France gains by the annexation of Savoy is emancipation from her own limits, and a precedent for the future enlargement of them; and it is of the utmost consequence to Europe not to allow that right, and not to permit France to plead that it has been granted. This M. Thouvenel knows, and hence his desire to show that no protest is made, and his ill-concealed exultation that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has not distinctly affirmed that the British Cabinet would not
  1980
  admit the principle. The noble Lord ably showed that the French arguments were untenable, but there the noble Lord stopped short, and has not guarded against the repetition of the act, though no one has stated more forcibly than he that a repetition was to be apprehended. It was on these grounds that he thought a protest on the part of England would be a valuable declaration of the public law of Europe against the principle of small States having the right to make cessions of territory to an aggressive and absorbing neighbour, without bringing the arrangements thereon distinctly under the notice of the Powers who were parties to previous treaties; and it would be also valuable as a declaration that acquisitions of territory, under such circumstances between Powers so unequal would be looked upon as similar to acquisitions by conquest, and as such requiring European sanction. But it may be said that this view with regard to the importance of a protest is a mere abstract view, without practical consequence; but I beg the House to consider of what an immediate and immense practical importance a protest is as bearing on passing events. At this time it is impossible for the House to shut its eyes to the marvellous and rapid fulfilment of that almost incredible scheme of policy attributed to the Emperor of the French from the day he mounted the throne of France. It was then authoritatively announced that his mission was to humble, one by one, the several Powers who contributed to the former defeat of France; to efface the Treaties of 1815, and, having avenged France on the Powers of the Continent, that then his last great crowning act would be to lower the pride and break down the power of England. It was with a view to the fulfilment of this policy that France beheld, not only with complacency, but with exultation, those immense warlike preparations which have been going on there for the last few years, both by sea and by land. Mark with what reason France may exult in the fulfilment of this policy. Russia has been defeated and weakened; Austria has been dismembered, the Treaties of 1815 have been trampled under foot in the cases of Savoy and Switzerland, and Prussia is now threatened. Indeed, there are rumours that Prussia is something more than threatened. Within the last few days there are rumours that overtures have been made to Prussia for the rectification of the Rhenish frontier, an equivalent being offered in the acquisition

  1981
  of some of the small States of Germany. These rumours may be premature; but the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has himself shown that they may be only premature, and that this is the direction in which the policy of France may be expected to be developed. This shows how the policy of France is being accomplished in one direction; and let me show how parties in France at this moment are exulting at its apparent accomplishment in another. Two years ago a good deal of interest was excited by the appearance in this country of a map, published under the authority of the French Government, and sent to the principal map-sellers in London. It was entitled "Europe in 1860." This has passed out of the memory, probably, of most of those who saw the map at the time, but subsequent events have given, and not the least in the eyes of France, a significance and importance to the matter. This map was published in the middle of 1858, and no one then anticipated that within one year large territorial changes would be made in Europe, or that there was likely to be war in Italy; and the diplomatic Mentor of the Government who is never misled or outwitted by the Emperor of the French—our Ambassador in France—told the British Government, months after that map had appeared, that there was no danger of war in Italy, and that France was not arming; but the author of the map saw what was approaching, because Lombardy was taken from Austria in that map and placed as a territory of Sardinia. We are now only at the commencement of 1860, and the predicted change of territory has actually been accomplished. No one foresaw in 1858 that there was likely to be war between Spain and Morocco; but the author of that map foresaw that war and some of its results, because in the map to which I have adverted the territory of Morocco was transferred to the dominions of the Queen of Spain. War between Spain and Morocco has since the publication of the map broken out, and a cession of territory has been made, though not to the extent predicted by the map; but it is impossible to separate that war from the policy of the man who predicted it. But the most important changes of all were to take place in Germany. This remains to be realized; but I want the House to observe what would be the effect of a protest on the part of England against the annexation of Savoy on the policy of France in Germany, and
  1982
  with what good reason M. Thouvenel may congratulate his Imperial master that England has not the courage or foresight to make that protest. Prussia is at this moment threatened by France; and the danger of Prussia was first announced to the House by the Foreign Secretary, who has always frankly and manfully expressed himself on this matter. I want the House to observe how critical is the state of Germany, and particularly from its close analogy to the recent position of Italy. The minor Princes are the bane of Germany, whose constant and perpetual dread has been that they were going to be absorbed by Prussia—not by conquest, but by the movement of their own people, just as the Italian Duchies were afraid of being absorbed by Piedmont. Hence it is—and I beg the House to remark this well—that many of the Powers of Germany feel the necessity, which the Italian Sovereigns also felt, of having an external support to lean upon. They have not that support in their own people, because the people would willingly join Prussia. They are compelled, therefore, to look for support abroad, seeing that they must have a protector if they are to remain Sovereign Princes at all. Formerly, before the Crimean war, they had that protector in Russia, and partly in Austria; and this accounts for the great ascendancy of Russia over the affairs of Germany in times past. But all that is now altered. Russia is beaten, and is fully occupied at home. Austria is in the same position. Germany is alarmed; her people are drawing more towards Prussia; but the fears and the jealousies of their own rulers are excited precisely in the same degree. Anything to them is preferable to being merged in that dreaded Prussia; and hence there is an anxious desire to look in other quarters for a protector. And now comes the particular danger springing from the annexation of Savoy. The precedent of Savoy will be cited in the case of Germany. The population drawing more and more closely to Prussia, more and more urgent will be the cries for help addressed to France by the petty German Princes. One after another every petty Sovereign and Court may be driven to follow the example of Sardinia, and connect itself in some form or other with France; and, if England has not protested, they will all plead that their right to dispose of themselves to another Power is an established principle of European law. But then the position of Prussia is most embarrassing.

  1983
  Without Germany she is weak; without Germany she is very vulnerable. She dreads France, and she dreads the ascendancy of France over the petty German Courts. She remembers the terrible outrages and sufferings that were inflicted by France during six years of tyranny. She would willingly fight if strong enough to do so, but she has no friend to rely on if England does not stand by her. Well, now, what assurance can any Prussian Minister feel that he will have the support of England? If he braves France, and if Prussia is suddenly attacked, what assurance has he that England will at once, and before Prussia is lost, throw her power into the scale and make common cause against a common danger? What guarantee of that can he have but the declaration of the British Parliament or the declaration of the British Ministry given publicly in Parliament? But if, on the other hand, Prussia feels that she cannot rely on England, may she not, against her own feelings and inclination, be driven to make her own terms with France, and, knowing that she has no hope of support elsewhere, may she not barter away the provinces coveted by France for an equivalent somewhere else? If she does so, what happens? Then comes the turn of the petty German Courts. A new Confederation of the Rhine springs up, German in name, but French in substance. Antwerp is not far off. The North Sea is lost. The maritime supremacy of France is doubled: and then what becomes of your trade, 0 ye worshippers of material interests and of the divine principle of commercial treaties at any price? Sir, I have often expressed in this House an opinion, which circumstances and reflection have more and more confirmed, that that special and exclusive alliance with France, estranging us from the other Powers of Europe, was a false, and unnatural, and a mistaken alliance. I am speaking of the special alliance which exists. In my opinion, there are no two great Powers of Europe which have so little in common, which have, in fact, so much that is directly and irreconcilably antagonistic, as France and England. My hon. Friend who interrupts me, the Member for Liskeard, has lately shown so much accurate knowledge as to Cracow and the Treaties of Vienna, that I am not at all surprised at his knowing so little about the analogy between the interests of different countries. I will explain what, perhaps, my hon. Friend has not
  1984
  considered—the difference which exists between the position of the two nations. The Government of England is a constitutional Government; that of France is a despotism. The Government of England is a peaceful; that of France is a military Government. We are a commercial nation; France is an aggressive State. The Government of England is a settled and legitimate Government; that of France is a Government of revolution. Above all, let me say the Government of England prides itself on being a highly moral Government, and the present Government of France I believe to be the most immoral Government in Europe. Under these circumstances, I feel that a special alliance between the two countries is a forced and precarious alliance. It is the alliance of peace with war, of constitutionalism with despotism, of the love of commerce with the lust for conquest, of legitimacy with revolution. And I believe that that special alliance will not last one day longer than it subserves the policy of aggrandizement in France, of which England has begun by being the tool, and of which she will end, I believe, by finding herself the victim. And even as regards the relations of commerce, I believe there can be no permanent commercial spirit in France as long as you have that law of perpetual subdivision of property, which prevents the formation of a permanent middle class, which discourages the acquisition of wealth and property, and which places the whole social system in France in a state of perpetual revolution. On the other hand, Prussia, which is now needing our assistance, is a kindred State, a constitutional, intelligent, progressive, and peaceful State. Compare her with France—France trampling down all the noblest interests of the nation, and diverting men's minds by the intoxication of war and military glory. Allied with Prussia, we form and we pursue a policy of our own. We stand forward as inculcating certain great principles, and upholding sound English influences. Allied with France, we incur the ridicule of every State of Europe, as duped, subordinate, led about—involved in what we hate and are ashamed of, struggling against our chains, which we are unable or afraid to break, and too feeble to give effect to our guarantees; forgetting that we are a European Power, much more, that we once were a Power of the first order, and the leading State of Europe. I ask again, what reliance can Germany place on us? What respect can

  1985
  she feel for us when she sees that we are the humble servants of France? I say that if the English Government are not prepared to rouse themselves to the declaration of a manly and a definite English policy, we must expect to see every Ally in turn abandon us, and to see Europe make her own terms with him who will then be the conqueror of the world. If we are not prepared to advocate a positive, a prompt, and a bold policy, we must be prepared at the same time to see every generous hope in Germany crushed. Nothing but the declaration of such a policy can save Prussia from the arms of France, and then many Savoys will rise up in succession, and we shall be beaten and humiliated on them all. It is for these reasons that I am anxious to see the Government of this country still enter their protest against the annexation of Savoy, as the first open act of French aggression—that they should make the meaning of that protest clearly understood in Europe—that they should make it the inauguration of a new alliance with Prussia, thus infusing new blood into Germany. It appears to me that the despatches of the French Minister have invited, have challenged us to some Parliamentary action on the subject. In one of these despatches he says that England has not protested, and he is rejoiced to find that she has not protested. That of itself is proof to us that a protest ought to be made; and, if necessary, Parliament should address the Queen, beseeching Her Majesty to instruct Her Ministers to make such a protest, and to follow it up, in concert with her Allies, by maintaining inviolable the neutrality of Switzerland, to the guarantee of which we were parties. I adhere to an opinion which I expressed in this House on a former occasion, that when Savoy was ceded to France, and the other great Powers of Europe refused to interfere, it would have been culpable and criminal folly on the part of England to have engaged single-handed in war with France to prevent that annexation. But the case of Switzerland is quite different, as we were told by the noble Lord himself. It is one in which the honour of England is involved. England has given a guarantee; her word has been solemnly passed; the danger is positive and real; the independence of Switzerland is an European question of the first order; and the Swiss have shown themselves true to themselves and to Europe, and have made known to the world that the loss of their freedom shall not be
  1986
  their own act. They have, indeed, appealed to Europe, but they have also startled Europe by a declaration, that if Europe abandons them in what is its own cause they are determined singlehanded to brave the colossal power of France rather than suffer extinction without a struggle. They had the spirit of their own poet, who said—
  "The land we from our Fathers had in trust,
  We to our children will transmit, or die:
  This is our maxim, this our piety;
  And God and nature say that it is just,
  That which we would perform in arms we must;
  We read the dictate in the infant's eye;
  In the wife's smile; and in the placid sky;
  And at our feet, amid the silent dust
  Of them that were before us."
  And, when Switzerland appeals to those who should guard the little citadel of freedom which has for so long shared with us the honour of affording a refuge to the persecuted and proscribed of other nations—when she is ready to send forth her little bands of patriots and heroes, with a devotion not surpassed in history, to fight for what the wise and good and great of all times have held to be the first possession of a people—is England to stand aloof, to forget her pledged word, to forfeit her honour, and to allow those territories which she has sworn to defend to become the scene of a tragedy which must leave a stain upon the honour of England in all after times? I know it is said that we can do nothing for Switzerland without a combination with all the other Powers. I say that in this case, which is for the prevention of war, such a general combination is not needed. I do not know what answer the Government may have received to the communications that were addressed to the different Powers of Europe; but we know this, that if we are true to ourselves we are sure of Prussia as well of Switzerland, and, in such a case, even those Allies alone are sufficient, with the help of England, not to make but to prevent war. The Emperor of France dares not make war in such a case as that of Chablais; the public opinion of Europe would overwhelm him; he could not rely upon the permanent support of his own people. We know that in the Italian war against Austria the French people, although at first reluctantly, did extend their support to the Emperor; but Austria was a wrong-doer and the public judgment of France condemned her; but in the case of Switzerland it would be different. Here France is entirely in the wrong. Chablais is not Sardinia's to give, it is not pre-

  1987
  tended to be necessary for the security of France, but it would be an act of pure aggression. I am confident that France would not endure that her men, money, and commerce should be sacrificed in such a cause. But then it is said, "If you interfere you incur the risk of war, which is a dreadful thing, expensive, and injurious to trade;" that "Chablais is a long way off, and it is no concern of ours." Those who say that this is no concern of England would say the same of the Rhine, or of Belgium; and if Kent and Sussex were invaded they would say that Kent and Sussex were no concern of the manufacturing districts of England. I say those are not the advisers to whom we should listen in a case of this kind. There is a maxim that those who are indifferent to the liberties of others will never defend their own; but it must be borne in mind that the trade and commerce of England are beyond anything affected by the development of the aggressive policy of France. We are not now deceived—we know what that policy means. We may hesitate to act, but that will not avail us, for we know that France will support the Emperor as long as our hesitating conduct makes his policy uninterruptedly successful; but we have reason to believe she would abandon it if we resolutely opposed it. The question then is this—shall we oppose the Emperor's policy in Switzerland, or shall we wait until he has subjected Switzerland, divided Germany, overrun Belgium, and has only England to deal with? Shall we confront him now with the voice of all Europe against him, or wait until Europe, humiliated and disgusted, turns with him against us? When I am told—as I dare say I shall be told—that what I am saying tends to provoke war, I answer that no Gentlemen in this House have a right to monopolize a hatred of war and a love of peace; and those who have the least right to do so are the advocates and supporters of the Emperor of the French, who I believe to be the greatest enemy of peace in the world. There is a state of peace which is even worse than war—when it is a mere adjournment of war to a more convenient season, when the enemy who is determined to attack you may strike with more deadly effect. I grant you that the Minister who pronounces the word "War" incurs a fearful responsibility; but he incurs a responsibility still more fearful who, conscious of an impending danger, shrinks from his duty of meeting it like a man, but in a degenerate
  1988
  and craven spirit, tides over the difficulty of the day, bequeathing to his successors and his country the increasing difficulties of an unsettled question of which the dangers have been aggravated by his timidity and the disasters multiplied a thousandfold by delay. I do not believe the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is such a man. He has been called upon to conduct the foreign policy of this country at one of the most critical moments of our history; for it is my solemn conviction that the next few years, perhaps months, may be among the most memorable in the history of England, and may leave their mark for good or for evil on after generations. I have heard speeches lately from the noble Lord which indicate that he is not insensible to the danger. In that case he will not shrink from his duty. He bears a name which is associated with the past greatness of England, and I trust he will never allow it to go down to posterity linked with the darkest hour of England's dishonour and decline.
  MR. DUFFsaid, he wished to ascertain the opinion of the House upon a question connected with the important subject which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman. At this critical moment, when Paris was the centre of all the intrigues of the Continent, was England efficiently represented in that capital? If they referred to the many despatches in which week after week Lord Cowley misled Lord Derby's Government, or looked to his journey to Vienna, which was a failure in itself and embarrassing to the Government, or considered the fact that a private Member of the House was in possession of important information which ought to have been known to our Ambassador in Paris, it would appear that the noble Earl was not sufficient for the post. He had been too long in Paris; a residence of eight years in that atmosphere was too long for one man;—for he (Mr. Duff) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that politically the French Court was the most immoral Court of Europe.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I do not well understand what the right hon. Gentleman proposes by the speech which he has just addressed to the House. It is, no doubt, his privilege to address us upon any part of our foreign or domestic policy; but, at the same time, it must be recollected that that privilege is accompanied by a deep responsibility; and I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman had not sufficiently

  1989
  weighed the importance of that responsibility, when he made that speech to which we have just listened. In the first place I must say, before I advert to the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman, that while he appeared to be preparing the House for war, while he seemed to be endeavouring to rouse the feelings of this House in favour of a contest with the Government of France, he never laid down what were to be the objects of that contest. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that Chablais and Faucigny were part of the Swiss territory, and that the French Government were about to invade and take possession of that territory, contrary to the rights of Switzerland. Whatever dangers we may have to encounter, whatever may be in future the position of affairs, that is not their present situation. The right hon. Gentleman asks me what is the present state of the Savoy question. I may explain to him, at least, a portion of that question—my duty forbidding me to go into details as to what has recently happened and is now happening—but in going into that subject, I must state that the question of Sardinia and its cession of Savoy, and the question of the neutralized portions of Savoy and their relations, first to Switzerland, and next to the great Powers of Europe, are two totally distinct questions. The right hon. Gentleman says we did not protest against the cession of Savoy by the King of Sardinia. There may be, and I think there are, cases in which it is right to enter a protest—where, for instance, a treaty is manifestly broken. There was the case of Cracow; but there we did not think our interests were so endangered, or our honour so much concerned, as to render it necessary for us to take up arms. Such an occasion is one for protest. But there are other cases. Undoubtedly the late Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the late Duke of Modena, found their territories violently taken possession of, and another Sovereign claiming the right to rule over them. Not certainly having any inferior interest in the matter, but not having at the same time the power to resume that sovereignty, they very properly protest; meaning thereby that they do not acknowledge the right to do what has been done: and that if it shall ever be in their power to resume their sovereignty, they are fully entitled to resume it. The subject in that case was a very proper one for a protest. But what is our position with regard to the cession of Savoy?
  1990
  When we first heard of the matter—when we were told that it was not at that time intended to be carried into effect, but that it might be carried into effect, we stated we thought such a transfer would have injurious consequences, both to France and to the general peace and tranquillity of Europe; but we were not entitled to say to the King of Sardinia that he should not cede his territory to France, nor were we entitled to say to the Emperor of the French that he should not accept the territory which the King of Sardinia intended to yield to him. So much is this the view of some of the Courts of Europe, that the Emperor of Russia, through his Minister, has said this is a matter which entirely concerns the two Sovereigns, and that the Emperor of France had a right to ask for that cession; and that the King of Sardinia had a right to make it; and that with regard to the pure cession, there was no room for question. I do not understand that any of the Powers of Europe have said even so much as we have said upon the subject. Some of them have considered that the Emperor of the French might take this territory, if it were yielded to him; some of them have considered it in the light in which we have done—as a most injurious example, and pregnant with future consequences of evil; but they have not said that they were entitled to protest on the subject. So far, therefore, I think we have not only acted in conformity with the law of nations, but in conformity with what has been the general sense of the other Powers of Europe. There is a question, however, intimately connected with this question, and it is a question of some complication, which has been partly discussed, and must be further discussed, and which at this time occupies the attention of the Cabinets of Europe. It was agreed in 1815 that certain portions of Savoy—Chablais, Faucigny, and part of the Genevois—should have all the benefits, in case of war between neighbouring Powers, which belonged to Switzerland; that the King of Sardinia should have the power to withdraw his troops through the neutral territory of Savoy and through the Valais; and that thereupon the only military authority which should have power in that district should be the troops of the Swiss Confederation. Well, there has been a discussion, and some of the diplomatic despatches on this subject have appeared in the newspaper. There has been, in the first place, a discussion as to what was the

  1991
  origin of this particular provision, which is contained in the 92nd Article of the General Treaty of Vienna, dated the 20th of November, 1815. The French Government have contended in more than one very able despatch that this very provision was made for the benefit of the King of Sardinia, and for the protection of his troops in case of war. It has been contended, on the other side, that it was intended for the security of Geneva, and for the general benefit of Switzerland. But, whatever may be the result of that discussion, the view which Her Majesty's Government take is, that it was a provision which was conducive to the general security of Switzerland, and of that neutrality which was declared to be part of the general policy of Europe. That being the case, a new question arises with regard to the change which has lately taken place. The Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia have concluded a Treaty at Turin, by an Article of which the neutralized parts of Savoy are transferred with the rest of Savoy to the Emperor of the French; but it is declared that that territory is transferred with the same conditions on which it was held formerly by the King of Sardinia. That provision naturally gave occasion to a demand for explanation. And it has been said, and most frankly as I think, both by the French Government and by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the King of Sardinia, that the meaning of that Article is not merely that the Emperor of the French takes that territory with the engagements as to neutrality to which I have alluded, and to which the King of Sardinia was subject; but he takes it, to use the phrase of Count Cavour, with the obligation of an efficacious neutrality for Switzerland. It being by general consent a great change that the neutrality which was formerly provided with regard to territory belonging to the King of Sardinia should be the condition of territory belonging to France, a most interesting and important question arises how that neutrality is to be efficiently maintained in the sense in which the Powers of Europe wished to establish it. But this is a question, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, which is not at all like that which he seems to suppose of the French Government seizing upon the territories of an independent State. It is a question on which you may argue that this change of condition is such that the neutrality of Switzerland cannot
  1992
  be placed in so secure a position as it was, whatever may be the precautions which you may provide. But, at all events, that is a question which may be maturely examined and considered; and, so far from being a question of war, it is a question which deserves to be considered by the coolest heads, by men of the greatest experience and of the most mature judgment, having regard, as it does, to the provisions of Treaties which hold the nations of Europe together. Well, Sir, there has been no objection by the French Government to the examination of this question. It is in general terms stated in the Treaty of Turin that the Emperor of the French will come to an understanding with the Powers of Europe on this subject. The Swiss Confederation, through their Federal Council, have asked that there shall be a Conference on this question. The French Government, through their Minister here—their Chargé d'Affaires—have more than once said to me that they have no objection to make to that Conference. The Powers which may be called to it, the manner in which they should be called, the place where they should meet, and the time at which they should assemble, may be matters of friendly consideration and discussion; but as to the Conference itself and the principle on which it should meet—namely, the reconciling the Treaty of Vienna, by which that guarantee was provided, with the present state of things, and the Treaty lately concluded between the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia—to that principle they make not the slightest objection, and they declare themselves perfectly ready to enter into it. Well, then, I say it depends not merely upon England, nor upon what I must call somewhat of a boasting declaration that we are at any time ready to go to war. It requires, I must say, that the Powers of Europe should be in a certain manner agreed as to the guarantees they should take, as to the precautions which they should establish, in order to give Switzerland an effective guarantee for her neutrality. Of this the right hon. Gentleman may be assured, that, without speaking of other Powers, or of the regard which they may have for the interests of Switzerland, the Government of Great Britain feels the utmost desire to see Switzerland—that free and independent nation—that refuge of the politically proscribed—that old and classical land of liberty—possessed of every guarantee that can secure to her the main-

  1993
  tenance of that independence and that freedom which she has so long enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman asks what course the Government of England moans to pursue in regard to our treaty engagements in respect to other parts of Europe. That is a very wide and important question, and I should be greatly embarrassed, if I were to go over our treaties with the different countries of Europe, and attempt to say what course should be taken with regard to each of them. It is enough for the present to say that we have now a critical question before us—that we are about to enter into negotiations on that subject—and that the eight Powers of Europe who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna will probably meet and take part in the consideration of it. I should therefore not only think it unwise, but a dereliction of my duty to go into details. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that our position is such as to reflect disgrace upon us; he considers that this country is the slave of France, and that we are too cowardly to stand by our guarantees. If that opinion of the right hon. Gentleman be a correct one, then the present Government must be unworthy of the confidence of this House or the country, and it would be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to call for a declaration by this House of another and more decided line of policy, and to take the management of public affairs out of the hands of those who have made the country a byword in Europe. But the right hon. Gentleman makes no proposition of that kind. He has made a speech, but so far as I could see there was no practical end in it. To be sure, the right hon. Gentleman did at one time somewhat inconsistently represent this country, and especially all concerned in commerce and manufactures, as being bribed by the advantages to be obtained by the late Treaty of Commerce with France. Now, it is not six weeks ago since I heard the right hon. Gentleman, along with many others, declare that we had been completly duped in that Treaty, and that, so far from gaining advantages by it, we had made ourselves the dupes of France. Then all the advantages were on the side of France, and all the loss on the part of England; and now it is represented as a bribe so manifest as to make us forget the independence of all other nations and the honour of our own. That is not a very consistent representation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. But with respect
  1994
  to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to that Treaty I consider that, while those matters which concern one of the nations of Europe in whose independence we take a deep interest require our attention, and while other questions that may arise affecting the independence and safety of other nations may, no doubt, also require our immediate attention, yet an extension of commercial relations and the mutual advantages derived by the people of France and England from an exchange of manufactures and the conveniences and comforts of life—France obtaining from us our manufactures, and we obtaining from them the productions of their more fertile soil and of the fine climate with which they have been blessed—will tend to bring the two nations nearer and nearer to each other—that they will make men think when any questions arise between them, not, shall we sacrifice our honour? not, shall we forfeit our good faith? not, shall we sacrifice the independence of other nations, and rush into war in order that the world may admire the brilliant and showy deeds of hostility?—but that they will rather induce them to consider whether the subject-matters in dispute cannot obtain a solution by peaceful means. These, I believe, will be the effects of this Treaty; and I am glad to think that when those in power in this country and in France have passed away, and when these particular questions may have lost their interest, the effect will be to induce the people of the two countries to draw closer together, and to form that alliance of nations which, after all, is more secure than any mere alliance of Cabinets or Kings. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether any despatch has been sent in answer to the last despatch of M. Thouvenol? The despatch of Her Majesty's Government was a despatch stating our reasons for not agreeing to the statement made by the Government of France in favour of the annexation of Savoy. M. Thouvenel did not answer that despatch. He took notice that it was not a protest, and contented himself with doing so; consequently, there was no further answer. We have stated our case, and have gone fully into it, and there was no reason for prolonging the discussion. Our opinions naturally differed from those of the French people. The French people thought with their Government that the annexation of Savoy would be an advantage to the defences of France; they were glad to see their Government put forward a claim

  1995
  to Savoy, and to see it assented to by Sardinia. The Government and the people of England took a different view of the question. We could not conceive that there was any practical necessity for the annexation of Savoy, and we gave our reasons for not assenting to such a policy. With regard to the future, this is not the time to enter into it. If the House leaves us to conduct these negotiations, I trust we shall not be unmindful of the honour of England, or of the interests of Europe, and that the right hon. Gentleman will find when the papers are laid before the House that we have done that which became us as British statesmen, and as the representatives of an important part of the community of European nations.
  MR. CLIFFORDdefended Lord Cowley from the attack made on him by the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Duff). He had known Lord Cowley for many years as one of the most able and intelligent public servants the country ever possessed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, It is unnecessary to add anything to what has been so fully, so ably, and I trust, so satisfactorily said by my noble Friend; but I must advert to the remarks which were made by the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Duff) in regard to the character and conduct of Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at Paris. I take leave to say that, having known that noble Lord for many years, having followed his course of duty in the various foreign States to which he has been accredited, and having had the honour to be his superior in office during periods of great difficulty, and when the duties he had to perform required all the qualities which an Ambassador ought to possess—I am bound to say that the attack made on him by the hon. Member behind me was founded on a complete mistake, on a great error as to the character and conduct of the person to whom his observations applied, and conveyed as unjust a censure as ever was passed on one who has ever shown himself to be a meritorious and deserving public servant. Lord Cowley has upon all occasions in which he has had to act as the Ambassador of England combined in a most remarkable degree that spirit of personal conciliation which is so essential to a proper performance of diplomatic duties with the strictest regard to the interests, the dignity, and the honour of this country. I am sure that those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who had an opportunity during the period
  1996
  they had the conduct of affairs of marking the conduct of Lord Cowley—of examining the manner in which he performed his duties—will concur in the opinion I have expressed, and in bearing that testimony which he so fully deserves to his transcendent merits as the representative of England to a most important foreign State.
  MR. A. W. KINGLAKEsaid, that the cause in which he felt such a deep interest had been so ably advocated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, that it was not without pain that he found himself differing from him in even a minute point. But it was his opinion that a protest was an indication rather of weakness than of strength, and he was not one of those who thought that the House would do well to press upon Her Majesty's Ministers the adoption of that particular course. His right hon. Friend had spoken of a protest as being the natural conclusion of such an affair. It was precisely because it would be the conclusion of this affair, that he (Mr. Kinglake) objected to a protest. He did not by any means acquiesce in that which had been done; but it was precisely because a protest would be the termination of this business that M. Thouvenel was anxious to incite Her Majesty's Government to a course which would enable him to treat the affair as having been brought to its end. He (Mr. Kinglake) could not help thinking that the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, was under great misapprehension as to what fell from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Stroud. The noble Lord seemed to impute to his right hon. Friend that he was ignorant of the position of Chablais and Faucigny, and that he imagined that these provinces were part of the Swiss territory. But with the knowledge that was possessed by his right hon. Friend, it was impossible that he should have fallen into such an error. What his right hon. Friend probably meant was something equivalent to what he (Mr. Kinglake) had the honour to say when he first introduced this subject to the House, namely, that Chablais and Faucigny, and the neutralized part of the Genevese territory, though they were, for domestic purposes, under the sovereignty of Sardinia, yet for European purposes they belonged to Switzerland; because the Treaty of Vienna expressly provided that, when war broke out between France and Austria, then the Sardinian troops should march out of these provinces, and that Swiss troops' should

  1997
  enter. Well, M. Thouvenel had contended that this particular provision, with regard to the neutralized districts, was one inserted for the benefit of Sardinia and the therefore Sardinia had a right to cede these provinces to France. But he (Mr. Kinglake) thought that M. Thouvenel, or any one who put forward or accepted that view must be unacquainted with the documents upon which this question rested. By the Treaty of Cession, dated, he believed, in March 1815, it was expressly declared that this cession was in favour of the Canton of Geneva—expressly showing that it was an arrangement intended for the benefit of Switzerland, and not of Sardinia. It was not therefore, possible, for Sardinia, with any colour of right or justice, to surrender these provinces to the Emperor of the French. Now, the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, had said that the provisions of this Treaty were such that he felt that he had no right to go to the King of Sardinia, on the one hand, and say, "You must not cede this territory;" or to go to the Emperor of the French on the other, and say, "You have no right to accept this cession." Well, he (Mr. Kinglake) could not understand how, with the knowledge the noble Lord must have of the Treaty of Vienna, he could possibly come to such a conclusion. By the treaty of peace, to which France herself was a party, it was stated in the most direct terms that the frontiers of France should be what they were then described to be—namely, such as they were before the recent annexation. It was also solemnly provided by united Europe that each Power that was a party to that treaty should be a guarantee for its maintenance. Then how was it possible for the noble Lord and the representatives of the rights of England in this quarrel to say that she is without the right—without the privilege of questioning this transaction? He could not but think, also, that the noble Lord was wrong in endeavouring to attribute to his right hon. Friend inconsistency, because he said that the Treaty of Commerce had been a bad bargain. It was very possible, as he imagined, that a portion of the community should be very much conciliated by the Treaty, whilst the general interests of the country were very little benefited by its provisions. Many of those who were interested in the trade of the country no doubt were conciliated by this Commercial Treaty; and his right hon. Friend might say that in perfect consistency with what he before stated
  1998
  —namely, that the whole was not beneficial to the country at large. He wished, now, to say a few words with regard to what had been done in the progress of our relations with the French Emperor since the House last met. The Emperor of the French had entered into three very strict engagements with England and the other Powers of Europe. He engaged in the first place that he would consult the great Powers of Europe. Well, the House knew that an attempt to fulfil that pledge was made by the despatch which was addressed by M. Thouvenel to the French Ambassador in London. The grounds upon which M. Thouvenel relied were combated by the noble Lord, who showed that they were altogether untenable. What was the reply to that despatch on the part of M. Thouvenel? Why he simply said that the prolongation of this discussion could produce no practical effect. He treated the noble Lord as one who was engaged in a mere barren discussion that could produce no practical result. If the noble Lord was the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—if he was one of the representatives of England in this quarrel, and England was still a great Power, he (Mr. Kinglake) thought the noble Lord had a right to expect a reply something different from this. Was this consulting England, to state certain reasons why the annexation should take place, and then, when those reasons were combated, to say that it was a mere barren discussion and a polemic that had better cease? He (Mr. Kinglake) denied that the French Emperor had fulfilled his promise or had consulted the Great Powers of Europe if this was the way in which the consultation was to be made. Then another engagement entered into by the Emperor of the French was that he would take the opinion of the populations of the countries proposed to be annexed. Now he (Mr. Kinglake) believed that throughout all Europe, before this question of annexation was raised, there were no more contented populations than those of Savoy and Nice. Well, when these questions were first raised they gave, he thought, every indication they could well be expected to give of the feeling they entertained on the subject. The population of North Savoy was animated not only by attachment to the throne of Sardinia, but by a strong dislike of being annexed to France; at any rate there was no question as to the authenticity of the 12,000 signatures to the petition against annexation to France, and to the prayer

  1999
  that if any change took place they might be annexed to Switzerland. But in the county of Nice the feeling was still more strong—it amounted indeed almost to unanimity. He was well informed that the proportion of those who objected to annexation to France was not less than five-eighths of the population. Was the conduct of the people of Nice inconsistent with this? The Municipal Juntas came to a resolution contrary to the annexation. The Colonel of the National Guard, who is chosen by the men, was opposed to it; a deputation was sent to Turin to entreat the King not to abandon them; and lastly, they elected Garibaldi and another, both of them men who were strongly attached to Sardinia. M. Laity was sent to Savoy, and M. Pietri to Nice. M. Laity was one of the fellow-labourers and associates of the Emperor in his Strasburg enterprise. That gentleman was sent to Savoy with instructions to promote there the principle of annexation to France, and M. Pietri, who was chef de police, and also a senator, went to Nice for the same purpose. He arrived there on the 30th of March, the French troops, who affected to be passing through on their return from Italy, being to reach the city on the 1st of April. The arrangements which were made for their reception were these: the gates were opened, no passports were required, the Provençals were admitted into the town with tri coloured flags, the sailors were landed from the French vessels of war which were in the port, and an attempt was made to get up a demonstration in favour of annexation to France. That attempt was a failure. If he (Mr. Kinglake) could inform the House of the source from which he obtained his information they would be satisfied of the truth of the report—it was from one who was present—that amongst the assembled people not a hand was raised, not a single voice was heard in favour of the scheme. Even a bust of the French Emperor drawn in procession by six grey horses failed to obtain a single cheer. On the 2nd of April a Provisional Government was formed; and the formation of that Provisional Government was, he asserted, one of the basest contrivances for shifting the allegiance of a loyal people ever resorted to by a Sovereign. The Sardinian authorities were displaced, and were succeeded not by French ones, but by men who were still to be called Sardinian employés, but who were to be nominated by France, and who were
  2000
  informed that if the annexation took place they would retain the places which had been conferred upon them. Nor was this all. Count Cavour addressed letters to the civil authorities urging them to do all they could to bring about the annexation; and also wrote to the Bishop of the county a nominee of his own, requesting him to obtain from the parochial clergy the use of their influence to induce the people of the villages to agree to it as an act of loyalty to their King. Was there ever a more cruel abandonment of a loyal people, or could anything be imagined more intolerable than that a Sovereign, not content with transferring his subjects to a foreign Power, should appeal to their loyalty to wards himself as an engine which was to induce them to renounce their allegiance? And this, as an hon. Friend reminded him, was done by Count Cavour, who declared in the most solemn and precise manner, and who succeeded in persuading many people of his fidelity, that he would never sell, concede, or exchange these dominions of the Sardinian King. On the 3rd of April, M. Pietri had the entire control of the Government of Nice. He had the direction of the police, and was really the governor of the place. On the 5th of April there was issued a proclamation, to a passage from which he must call the attention of the House. In all countries there were to be found persons of varying degrees of honour and of baseness. In the county of Nice, Count Cavour found a person named Luboni to act as Provisional Governor of the country, and this person addressed to the people a proclamation, in which, after saying,
  "At the august voice of the King all uncertainty with regard to our future mast cease; at those august words must disappear all dissensions and rivalries:"
  he continued,
  "Public demonstrations from this moment have no reason in them. Let us hasten to affirm by our suffrages the annexation of our county to France. In rendering ourselves to echo the intentions of the King let us press round the flag of that noble and generous nation which has always excited our lively sympathies. Let us rally round the throne of the glorious Emperor Napoleon III. Let us surround him with that fidelity peculiar to our country, which we have hitherto reserved for King Victor Emmanuel;"
  and the proclamation ended with the words, "Vive la France! Vive l'Empereur Napoleon III.!" Under such circumstances as these, the candidate upon whom the people had set their hearts hav-

  2001
  ing declared himself disqualified, and entreated his supporters to have nothing to do with the election, it was not surprising that the National Committee of Nice determined to abstain from voting, and he believed that no further precaution on the part of M. Pietri was necessary. That gentleman, however, seemed to have been determined to make assurance doubly sure, and therefore the urns in which the votes were to be deposited were committed to the superintendence of four persons who were known to be favourable to the plan of annexation to France. All hope of a fair election was at once extinguished. And this was how the Emperor had kept his second promise, this was how he had annexed these provinces by what he called universal suffrage. It was a great evil to mankind when brute force was used to overcome a free people; but that was not the utmost wrong which the Emperor of the French had perpetrated; because to that wrong he had added a semblance of consulting the population, but had adopted such means to mislead and overawe them as to render anything like a free choice or election absolutely impossible. This being the way in which the Emperor of the French had kept his two promises to consult the Powers of Europe, and to be bound by the free expression of the wishes of the peoples also were to be annexed, there was a third promise, the result of which was still open—namely, that in case of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France Chablais and Faucigny should be joined to Switzerland. That promise was made to Lord Cowley, not only by M. Thouvenel, but also personally by the Emperor himself, as was shown in the despatch of the 5th of February, and therefore the House would see that the personal honour of the Emperor of the French was pledged to the performance of a promise thus deliberately made to the British Ambassador. Upon this subject, however, he forbore from saying another word, because he collected from the statement of the noble Lord that it was now the subject of negotiation; but he must, before sitting down, express his hope that that negotiation would be conducted with a due sense of the importance of the question. The annexation of Faucigny, Chablais, and the Genevoise to France would absolutely destroy the neutrality of Switzerland by making it, as every military man knew, perfectly impossible to defend the western portion of that country. He was not, therefore, exagge-
  2002
  rating when he said that in this question there was involved the neutrality and integrity of Switzerland; and that with the neutrality and integrity of Switzerland, there was at stake the safety of Germany, and the peace and tranquillity of Europe for many years to come.
  Afterwards,
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he was unwilling that it should be taken for granted that he acquiesced in the observation that the explanation given by the noble Foreign Secretary was satisfactory, as that depended on the answer that might be given to the question he desired to put. The Swiss Confederation had appealed to the Powers of Europe, requiring that there might be a Conference to consider the condition of the neutralized provinces, and demanding at the same time that until the Conference met and a decision was come to, that the neutralized provinces should not be occupied in a military sense by France. What he wished then to know was, whether the noble Foreign Secretary, when he said that the Government of France was willing to submit this question to a Conference of the great Powers of Europe, and that in the opinion of the Government that Conference would conduce to the settlement of the question in a manner to secure the independence and neutrality of Switzerland, means to imply that matters would in the meantime remain in statu quo, and that the neutralized provinces would not be militarily occupied by France. On this the whole question turned, for it was obvious, as pointed out in one of Lord Cowley's despatches, that if this neutralized territory should be put in the hands of France, any stipulation with regard to the matter would not be worth the paper on which it was written. Lord Cowley had pointed out to the Government that it would be in the power of France in a moment to pour her legions, without the smallest resistance, into Switzerland, and it was perfectly obvious that if France entered into possession that anything like a retirement from it at a suggestion from a Conference was what the noble Lord, in the most sanguine moment of his existence, could not possibly anticipate.

THE CURRENCY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had given notice of the following Question, which he wished to put to Mr. Chancellor

  2003
  of the Exchequer—"Whether his attention has been directed to the Bank of England Return, published in The Gazette of Friday last, in so far as regards a diminution of notes in the hands of the Bank, and an addition to those in circulation; and whether he could give any information as to the report that this has not been produced by the ordinary requirements of trade, but by some concerted action on the Bank's Reserve, to produce a disturbance in the Currency of the Country." The proper use of the currency was a matter which not only interested the metropolis, and banks and bankers here, but it affected every part of the country, and all engaged in the operations of commerce. At the beginning of this year the rate of discount was 2½ per cent; on the 19th January it was advanced to 3 per cent; on the 31st January to 4 per cent, and at the end of March to 4½. The reserve of the Bank of England then stood at £8,083,000. On the 4th April, although there had been no alteration in the rate of discount, the reserve had diminished to £6,842,000. Last Thursday the rate of discount was raised to 5 per cent, and the figures in The Gazette of Saturday showed that the Bank reserve had fallen from near £7,000,000 to under £5,000,000, This astonishing diminution in the reserve naturally attracted considerable attention and caused much inquiry as to its cause. Last Saturday the well-informed and intelligent writer of the "City Article" of The Times announced that the diminution had not arisen from any extraordinary demand upon the Bank in the ordinary operations of trade; but from some concerted action on the part of the discount houses, by which a large amount of notes had been taken from the Bank and withdrawn from circulation; and that statement was confirmed in The Times of Monday last. It appeared to him that a charge of that kind—an amount which, from the analogy of previous years, would require the rate of discount to be 6 per cent and upwards. A charge of that kind was so disparaging to the character of London, and so injurious to the monetary interests, that he had thought it his duty, as connected with a large banking establishment, to ask this question, with a view to ascertain, on behalf of the public at large, whether there was any truth in the rumour that, by concert, a quantity of bank notes had been withdrawn from circulation and locked up in a box, where they were of
  2004
  no use to anybody. The public were now told that two days since the very same notes—£1,000 notes—had been returned to the Bank. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to throw some light on the transaction.

INCOME-TAX COLLECTORS.
  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to put the following Question to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer:—"Whether persons who may have become sureties for Income Tax Collectors at a time when the rate of the Income Tax was 5d. or 7d. in the pound, are liable for any default made by the Collector when the rate of the Income Tax is 9d. or 10 d. in the pound; and if they are not, whether in the event of a Collector making default, the tax-payer will be held liable to make a further payment to cover the deficiency." He understood that a case of the kind had occurred some years ago, where the Collector became a defaulter, and his sureties contended that they were not bound under the higher rate of tax to make good the deficiency; and the revenue officers had come to the conclusion that they could not call upon the sureties. He would also ask what was to be the first business of the evening after Supply, and whether any of the Bills on the paper would be proceeded with?
INLAND BONDING WAREHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to bring in his intended Bill to authorize Inland Bonding Warehouses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would answer the last question first. The course to be taken on the subject of inland bonding depended a good deal on what the House had voted or might vote in connection with the Customs' Duties Bill. As soon as that Bill had passed the House, which he hoped would be very soon, he would state what he proposed with respect to inland bonding.
  In reply to the Question as to the liabilities of income tax collectors and their sureties, the House was aware that the appointment of collectors, and the arrangements in general, were not under the direct control of the Executive Government, but

  2005
  under the superintendence of local authorities. But there was some misapprehension in the hon. Baronet's Question. The appointments of collectors were not permanent appointments, but were made from year to year; the bonds were taken from year to year; and consequently the liabilities of the sureties of the bonds could not be carried forward from year to year. A great deal of attention was therefore requisite on the part of the local authorities to see that the bonds were kept up, and that the sureties were renewed with the appointments. But this was a part of the system somewhat difficult to work under the superintendence of the local authorities, and he thought that the attention of the House might be advantageously called to it—he hoped during the present Session; for the liability of tax-payers to be called on for second payments was a most serious matter, and the state of the law was not satisfactory.
  As to the order of business, he proposed to take the Committee on the Customs Bill if he could do so by eleven o'clock. If not, he would not that night proceed with any of the measures under his care, except the Bill for repealing Sir John Barnard's Act. The Refreshment Houses and Wine Licecnes Bill could not come on; he would place it for Monday, and then state when it would be brought forward.
  The next Question was that of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Alderman Salomons), who asked if his attention had been directed to the Bank Return in The Gazette of Friday last? It had; for as the hon. Member correctly stated, that Return was regarded by the whole mercantile community as an index to the state of the country, and undoubtedly it was the duty of a person in his position to keep it in view. The principal facts relating to that Return were well shown in the Parliamentary paper moved for by the hon. Member himself, and published that morning, by which any one would at once see the most material facts. The first page of that paper showed that the diminution in the Bank reserve was almost entirely caused by the withdrawal of notes of £1,000 each. The notes of that description held by the Bank at the last Return amounted to £1,927,000 only; while on the 11th April, the date of the previous Return, they were £3,585,000. So large a difference as that having occurred in a single denomination of notes was of itself a demonstration which supplied the answer to the latter part of the
  2006
  hon. Gentleman's Question—namely, that the diminution of the reserve was not produced by the ordinary requirements of trade, but by some special operation. The latter part of the Question seemed, however, to imply that that result had been produced by some concerted action on the Bank's reserve, and with the view to produce a disturbance in the currency. He was not prepared to give any decided answer upon that point, further than to say that he did not think it was a "concerted action" in the natural interpretation of the words—namely, an action determined on by a combination among a variety of parties. There was no variety of parties; for it was entirely owing to a proceeding of a single house of great eminence and enormous transactions, which had thought fit, in the exercise of its own discretion, to adopt measures that had had that effect. There certainly was intention, though, perhaps, it did not amount to concert. The hon. Gentleman asked if this had been done in order to produce a disturbance of the currency of the country. He should go beyond his duty if he gave an opinion on that subject. Nothing would be more inexpedient than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to presume, by opinions given in that House, to interfere with the freedom of mercantile houses carrying on their ordinary business, who might do what was not prudent or imprudent, and who might take measures which they were perfectly free to take, but which, if they were of great extent, might injuriously affect the public interests. Every customer of a Bank was free to do what he liked with his balance, whether that balance was at a private bank or the Bank of England. On this, and on more general grounds, it was not fitting in him to pronounce an opinion on the matter. He had, however, seen the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England, and one of the partners in the house of Overend and Co.—the house concerned—who, he must say, had invited communication, and had stated all the facts, and their view of the case, with the most perfect frankness. The Bank of England being a public institution, if there was anything to blame in its conduct, it might be a very proper subject of complaint in that House. But all persons were agreed that there was nothing that could be made the subject of censure in the proceedings of the Bank for the last fortnight. On that he believed there was unanimity of opinion.

  2007
  On the other hand, if the proceedings of a private house had been imprudent or injurious to the public interests it would be a very bad way of curing that evil if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should presume to pass sentence on their proceedings. It was within the knowledge of all that whatever had been done in this case had been done, not so much as a private transaction, but rather in the exercise of the power which every mercantile house might think itself entitled to exercise in order to expose what it might think wrong in the existing state of the law, so as to bring into view what it might consider a public evil, and thereby to produce and promote a disposition to apply a remedy to that evil. He gave no opinion on the existence of any such public evil. The state of the case he apprehended to be this. After the crisis of 1857, the Directors of the Bank of England were gravely impressed, as all must be, with the extreme inconvenience and mischief that resulted from repeated suspensions of the law at the discretion of the Government: yet the Bank of England and the Government had jointly found that that suspension was unavoidable, under the circumstances of the crisis when they occurred. The Bank of England had subsequently a rule for what he might term, not invidiously, the exclusion of a particular class of traders from discount; because the Directors of the Bank thought that such a rule was necessary to enable that establishment, under critical circumstances, to maintain their position, and to preclude the necessity of the interference of the Executive Government for the suspension of the law. The parties affected by that rule, on the contrary, thought that it was a very bad and injurious rule—that it tended very greatly, not only to their inconvenience, but to that of the public—and that it tended to throw what they considered their legitimate business into the hands of the Bank of England. These were very grave matters on both sides. They might well deserve careful investigation, but they were matters lying far above the region of the mere selfish or personal interests of any mercantile establishment whatever: they, in fact, cut deeply into the whole question of the policy of the present law; and nothing should be said tending to prejudge such a question. But this ought to be said in justice to the Bank—that everybody admitted that they had acted with the most perfect propriety and prudence under the circumstances of the
  2008
  case; and in justice, on the other hand, to the house of Overend, Gurney, and Co., that they had not the smallest objection to giving publicity to all the circumstances, because they consider that they have acted within their own right and discretion, and likewise in conformity with what they believe to be the public interests. Under these circumstances he did not think it necessary to go further into the matter.

THE NAVAL RESERVE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, there was such a wide difference of opinion on the subject of the Coastguard between the Secretary to the Admiralty and himself, that he must again refer to the matter. The number of the Coastguard was stated in the Estimates at 9,500. Seven years ago, Sir Charles Wood informed the House that they had a reserve of 8,500 men. The exact strength of the Coastguard at the present moment he found from Returns was 576 officers, 5,631 seamen, and 655 hoys, who, together with the 800 Naval Volunteers, constituted the whole Reserve force which the country possessed. And out of those 5,631 seamen, only 3,200 would be ready for the defence of the country in the event of anything unpleasant taking place on the Continent; yet the Manning Commission reported that for the safety of the country a Reserve force of not less than 70,000 men was necessary. If he were wrong in these figures, he hoped he should be corrected; but he had obtained them from head-quarters. In the present posture of affairs, the House would surely not be satisfied with so small a reserve as he had mentioned to fall back upon in any emergency.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETdid not suppose that anything he could say as representing the Admiralty would lead the gallant Admiral to believe that he was honestly endeavouring to give a true statement of the number of men available for sea service. Once for all, however, he would inform the gallant Admiral that, by a return just published by the Controller General of the Coastguard, the number of men and boys available for immediate sea service was 6,862. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Then my figures are quite correct.] He presumed, then, that the gallant Admiral had no complaint to make on that score, With regard to the Royal Naval Volunteers, it was true that only 800 of

  2009
  these had yet been enrolled; but there was, in his opinion, a very unnecessary alarm, both in Parliament and out of doors, upon the supposed failure of the scheme. From the first he never felt that seamen would join the new force all on a sudden, but, so far was he from regarding the progress of the Reserve force as unsatisfactory, that he was beginning to think it promised well. There was now a progressive increase weekly in the entry of men. In point of fact, they had only been ready to enrol the men since the 1st of the present month. The training ships had not before been in a state of preparation, and, as the men knew perfectly well that they could not begin exercising until the beginning of April, that fact, it might naturally be supposed, operated to prevent them from coming forward before. At the outset 30 or 40 a week were enrolled. The number was now increased to 100 per week, and if this rate could only be maintained there would soon be a very respectable force of Volunteers. It appeared to him that the gallant Admiral, by continually bringing before the House these statements as to the deficiency of our forces, acted very unreasonably, and did net tend either to advance his own credit or to promote the good of the country. The Government bad this year taken money Votes for 11,000 men more than were demanded for the service of the last year. They had no difficulty in getting men, who were entering—he would not say freely—but in a satisfactory way. So far were the Admiralty from finding any difficulty in obtaining men that they were declining to enter any but able seamen, unless they were men who had before been in the service. With respect to the Channel fleet, he was constantly visited by officers of high and low rank, who said, "Cannot you persuade the Member for Southwark to cease from offering continual encouragement to discontent among the crews?" He was bound to tell the gallant Admiral that his brother officers felt poignantly the continual complaints which he made about the men not having sufficient leave, when he could assure the House the fact was that they had more leave than had ever been conceded in former days. The cause of almost all the late disasters had been the prevalent practice of breaking leave; hut, irrespective of that, the fleet was in a healthy and satisfactory state considering how lately it had been created. There had been individual cases of
  2010
  insubordination, arising out of this question of leave, but the men were making good progress, and general contentment existed throughout the fleet. The gallant Admiral complained of the want of petty officers. No doubt there was. Could anybody expect, when a fleet had been created in so marvellously short a time, that it would have its full complement of experienced petty officers? At present, whenever a ship came home from foreign service, men who had behaved well were allowed to enter the Coastguard. This system accounted for the want of petty officers, for otherwise the men in question would now be petty officers on board the Channel fleet. The gallant Admiral's complaint on this score, therefore, was unfounded. He had made another more unreasonable than any. He stated that he had found the men were very overworked, were made to undergo excessive drill, and that great discontent existed in consequence. These complaints of coarse had gone down to the lower decks. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: I complained of the system, not of the quantity.] He could not see the force of this distinction. He Lad that day received a visit from Admiral Elliott, who was Captain of the Channel fleet, who was much distressed at the statements that had been made, and he produced a statement showing that the utmost amount of drill on hoard his ships did not exceed two hours a day, and upon an average of a week only one hour a day. That certainly was not an excessive amount of drill. He fully admitted that the gallant Admiral honestly desired to improve the service, but a strong feeling prevailed at the Admiralty and on board the ships, that his speeches in that House were doing incalculable mischief to a young fleet, which was now well-disposed, because they led the sailors to imagine grievances which really had no existence. He would not enter then upon the question of shipbuilding, because a notice had been given by an hon. Member on the subject. He hoped that when it came on the whole matter would be thoroughly sifted.
  MR. DISBY SEYMOURwished to know whether any school-ships were to be established, recording to the recommendation of the Manning Commission, who said that they were the best source of supply for our naval force. The important subject of our Naval Reserve had been most ably treated in an article in that day's Times, and the question of school-ships was in-

  2011
  timately connected with it. The Commission suggested that twelve school-ships should be placed in the principal ports of the kingdom. He hoped a supplemental Estimate would be introduced to provide for that want, and if no one else moved he would move such an Estimate. The great steamship companies of Southampton were willing to give liberal assistance in the formation of a Naval Reserve, and he hoped that at least Government would meet half way those ports which were inclined to contribute towards the establishment of school-ships.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEwarmly supported the establishment of school-ships, which, he said, the Manning Commission looked upon as the foundation of their scheme. If that plan was not carried on simultaneously with, or in advance of, the Naval Reserve, it would take away from it half its efficacy. He was perfectly satisfied that the great shipping ports would gladly defray part of the expense of the school-ships. The late troubles in the fleet had arisen not from drilling or working too much, but entirely from the breaking of leave, which showed a great laxity of morals among the men. One cause of this was the desperately bad places the seaman got into when he went ashore—places where he was fleeced of all his money, and utterly prostrated both in body and mind. He had seen, in the streets of Portsmouth, sailors; of the Royal Navy lying about disgracefully drunk, with nobody to look after them. It was not so in the army, for if soldiers kept out beyond a certain hour the pickets were sent to bring them in. He would therefore press upon the Government the necessity of establishing a police at the different dockyards and naval ports who would know where every man who landed would be found. As to the drill, the men suffered from a want of work rather than from an excess of it.
  MR. WHITBREAD, in reply to what had been said about establishing more training ships, explained that as yet they were rather a novelty, and there were many questions of detail to be considered before the Government could form an exact estimate of the annual expense of maintaining them. One vessel had been appropriated for the training of the boys, and as soon as the Admiralty had some little experience in the matter, they would shape their future course accordingly. The proposition to go halves with Southampton was one which the Admiralty were not yet
  2012
  prepared to deal with. It was perfectly correct that an offer had been made to the Admiralty by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company to allow the sailors of their magnificent vessels to be trained in the Royal Naval Reserve, while continuing to receive their wages from the Peninsular and Oriental Company.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he would postpone until the next Supply night the Motion of which he had given notice for a Commission of Inquiry into the control and management of the dockyards.
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee.

SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum not exceeding £174,378, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of Her Majesty's Naval Establishment at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
MR. W. WILLIAMS, going into the Estimates in detail, called attention to the great increase of several items over the Estimates of last year, especially for the appointment of additional clerks in dockyards at Chatham and Sheerness. He also remarked that, at Portsmouth and at Devonport, a new officer, called an assistant-superintendent, had been created, each with a salary of £800 a year. At Devon-port, moreover, there was another new officer, called an acting accountant, with £500 a year, and at the Haslar Hospital an Inspector-general. The increase of this Vote altogether for the salaries of different officers in the dockyards, victualling, and medical establishments was not less than £24,700. The waste and extravagance in this Department could never be justified.
MR. CORRYasked what were the special duties of the assistant superintendents of the dockyards whom it was now proposed to appoint? If they were to' be naval officers he did not think they were the best persons to overlook the work of the shipwrights.
SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURalso wished to know the distinct grounds on which these new appointments were to be made, and whether it was in consequence of any representations from the superior officers who had the control of our dockyards.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was true that the officers in charge of Portsmouth and Devonport had not made any strong representations asking for this additional assistance, but we had now nearly double the number of men working in the dockyards that we had some time ago; and there was a corresponding increase of clerks and officers in almost every department, and it was not reasonable to expect that the chief superintendents, whose correspondence was so enormously increased, could now look over the whole of the work and business of the dockyards, as they did before. He was sorry to say also that several very serious cases of embezzlement had lately occurred; but he was persuaded that if the superintendents, and the officers under them, were not so excessively pressed with an increase of work, they would be better able to ascertain what was going on. It was, therefore, the opinion of the Admiralty, that it would be a piece of good economy to appoint these additional superintendents. But they were about to have a regular inquiry into the dockyards, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle; an inquiry, which as he trusted, would be conducted by persons of high position, and would embrace the whole consideration of these important matters. It was, therefore, intended not to appoint these officers, until the inquiry should have taken place to see whether it was absolutely necessary or not. He proposed that the amount allotted for their salaries should stand on the Estimates in the meantime. As for the number of additional clerks employed it arose from the extraordinary amount of shipbuilding and other work that had been going on, and if that were to be continued the establishments must be enormously increased; but he trusted it would not always be necessary to make such great exertions in our dockyards, and that the present state of; things would prove to be merely exceptional. The Admiralty had, therefore, preferred to provide for it by the employment of temporary clerks.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTexpressed his opinion that amongst the half-pay Naval officers who were on shore unemployed the Admiralty could select very competent persons for assistant superintendents of dockyards.
MR. BRISTOWurged that the sum of £1,600 for the salaries of those two officers should be withdrawn from the Vote, if it were not intended to appoint them now.
MR. JACKSONalso supported the recommendation to reduce the Vote by that amount.
MR. W. WILLIAMSalso, appealed to the noble Lord to strike out this item. He did not see why there should be such an extraordinary amount of work just now in our dockyards, for we were told that we had ships enough, and only wanted men.
MR. BENTINCKshould be glad to know the number of men discharged from Portsmouth since the commencement of the financial year.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the total number of persons employed in the dockyards on the 1st of March was 20,032; but in the Estimates of 1860–61, the number was only 16,071. The number of shipwrights on the establishment on the 1st of March was 4,057; but the number proposed in the Estimates was 4,000. Of hired shipwrights the number on the 1st of March was 3,632; but in the present Estimates the number was only 1,950.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked how it was, seeing that a number of men had been discharged in the dockyards, that the charges for clerks was £1,872 more than last year?
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know the number of the new officers appointed under this Estimate, and the amount of the salaries they were entitled to receive? Would they be entitled to superannuation? Because if they were, and if, after two or three years, the office was found not to answer, the country might be saddled with the officer for life.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the only new offices created were those of two assistant-superintendents, and as they would be naval officers, there would be no superannuation allowance attached to the appointment. The other additions were made under Vote 11, by which a sum was taken for the whole staff of the Director of the Works, each dockyard having its own. There were a number of additional temporary clerks.
SIR HENRY LEEKEsaid, that hon. Members seemed to forget that the work in the dockyards and in every department of the service had more than trebled within the last two or three years, and he thought it was an excellent plan to appoint assistants to the superintendents.
MR. LYGONsaid, the business of the dockyards generally had considerably increased, and it was necessary to place

2015
Deptford and Pembroke dockyards on the same footing as those of Sheerness and Chatham.
Mr. ALDERMAN SALOMONSasked, whether there was any intelligible principle in the appointment or dismissal of the shipwrights? A great many extra men had been engaged, but some of them were dismissed. He wished to know whether the principle of seniority prevailed in respect to this. It was rumoured that private interests were brought to bear in regard to those officers. He hoped that such a rumour was unfounded.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the persons responsible for the discharge of shipwrights were the superintendents of the yard, who invariably retained the best workmen, provided they were not near the age of thirty-five, after which they were not allowed to be placed upon the establishment.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, there was a general impression abroad that there was a great advantage in obtaining the influence of a Member of Parliament in procuring appointments in those dockyards; and that an application by a Member to the Board of Admiralty was frequently successful in obtaining a situation in those places. It was alleged that private influence was often successful in obtaining those appointments without due consideration of the merits of the individuals selected. He thought that no persons should be appointed over those dockyards who were not shown to be fully competent for the office, and who did not understand the building of ships. He wished for some explanation as to the repeated changes that had taken place lately amongst the superintendents of dockyards.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. Baronet did not quite understand the various duties which a superintendent had to perform. If the works of the dockyards were confined to the building of ships it was evident that the individual appointed as superintendent should be thoroughly acquainted with the mode of constructing ships. But ships were not only to be built in those places but also to be rigged and turned out fit for sea. He admitted that in consequence of a chapter of accidents there had been many changes made amongst the superintendents of the dockyards, but those changes were wholly unavoidable. He could assure the hon. Baronet that political influence had not now, nor had it under the late Board of
2016
Admiralty, anything to do with dockyard appointments. He believed that those appointments of late years, at all events, depended substantially upon the merits of the individuals themselves.
MR. CORRYwished to know what the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) meant by saying that political influence was used in respect of appointments.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman would find it stated in a Report of a Committee of the House that "corrupt expedients" had been used in the obtainment of contracts.
MR. CORRYwould remind the hon. Baronet that the "corrupt expedients" were not charged by the Committee against the Admiralty or to the late Government, but against a gentleman who had obtained a contract. The Committee to which the hon. Baronet referred was that on steam-packet and telegraph contracts; but neither it nor the Committee which had during the present Session inquired into the petition against the return for Dovor accused the late Government of corrupt expedients.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERthought it would be advisable when a Rear-Admiral who was superintendent of the dockyard was promoted, to allow him to continue his five years in office.
MR. FREELANDsaid, he had bad an application made to him with regard to a situation in one of the yards, and he was glad to say that on mating inquiries he found that any interference on his part would be rather injurious than otherwise to the person on whose behalf he had been requested to exert himself. He hoped the House would assist the Admiralty in putting a stop to political interference with the dockyards.
MR. JACKSONagreed that it was absurd to remove a superintendent as soon as he had learnt his business.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEfound in the Votes, items of £120 per year for Roman Catholic Chaplains in some ports, while in two others he believed the amount was somewhat more. There was also a place fitted up for Roman Catholic worship in some of those ports. The Presbyterians in the navy were ten to one to the Roman Catholics, yet the only item he saw down for a clergyman for the Presbyterians was a sum of £20 paid at Woolwich.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the question of making any increase to the stipends allowed to clergymen was a very serious one. If the Presbyterians in any

2017
port made an application to the Admiralty it should receive due consideration.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(1.) £172,778, Salaries and Expenses, Naval Establishments at Home.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £30,953, Salaries and Expenses, Naval Establishments Abroad.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an increase of £2,870 on the Vote; though he could not see that any additional work was done.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the increase was not so large as was supposed by his hon. Friend. An increase had been made in the salaries of the medical officers; and the salary of the Director of Works had been transferred from Vote No. 11 to this Vote.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,440,681, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that unless a satisfactory explanation was given of a statement contained in the Report of the Dockyard Committee which sat last year, he should feel it necessary to move a considerable reduction of this important Vote. In the first place the Committee pointed out the remarkable variation in the charge for wages in different yards, it was stated that the cost of labour for building certain ships at Chatham had been £5 8s. per ton, whereas at Woolwich the cost had been £8 16 s. It was moreover stated by four of the members of the Dockyard Committee that the sum expended by private builders in labour would not have been more than £2 12 s. per ton—that was, not more than a third that was paid by the Royal Navy.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would endeavour to show the Committee the reason why the discrepancy existed in the cost of building ships in different dockyards. There was great difference in the price of a vessel built at Chatham and the cost of two others which had been built at Woolwich. It should be observed, however, that these vessels were built in the midst and, he might add, during the confusion of the Russian war. He would state the reason why the vessel built at Chatham (the Cadmus) cost so much less
2018
per ton than the vessels built at Woolwich (the Pearl and the Scout). At Chatham there happened to be plenty of timber lying in the yard, which at a very small expense could be converted into the frame of a corvette. At Woolwich, where two similar vessels (corvettes) were built, there was no timber proper for the particular purpose, and old timber, which had originally been prepared for other vessels, had to be altered at considerable expense into the frames of the two vessels. Another circumstance should be taken into consideration, and that was that Chatham was not a fitting yard, whereas Woolwich was; consequently, the vessel at Chatham could be built without interruption, while at Woolwich, where there was a great amount of shipfitting done, the artificers on the two corvettes were continually withdrawn from their work to do something else which it was necessary to do in a hurry. These interruptions necessarily entailed expense. Another cause of the differeuce of expense was that at the different yards, there was a different system of calculating when a ship was properly prepared; and consequently less money would, of course, have been spent on the less forward vessels, though equally styled "prepared." It appeared, also, that at the time the vessels were built there was such an excess of duty in the dockyard at Woolwich that certain clerks were appointed to value the expenditure on timber and stores, and, to make a long story short, the account referred to by the hon. Gentleman was not a correct one. The Controller had sent down an experienced officer, and a strict investigation was going on respecting some other vessels mentioned by the Committee which had been alluded to, and the Admiralty were most anxious to improve the system of taking the accounts of vessels.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the statement was satisfactory as far as it went; but though the noble Lord had answered his question with regard to the difference in the price of shipbuilding in Woolwich and Chatham dockyards, but not as to the discrepancy in price between the Government and private yards. But besides that difference of 173 s. to 52 s. there must be added to the former all the interest in the capital which was sunk in the public yards, inasmuch as every private builder took into his estimate the interest upon the capital engaged in his business. So that the comparison would really stand, not as 52 s. against 173 s., but as 52 s. against 173 s.

2019
plus another figure, which would perhaps bring it up to 200 s. He repeated that he had received no answer to this important question.
MR. JACKSONsaid, that even this did not represent the whole case, because the private shipbuilder had rent to pay for his yard, and local taxes, from which the Government were exempt, so that the comparison was extremely favourable to the Government. He had had considerable correspondence with individuals employed in dockyards upon this subject, and was told by one holding a high official position, that every Commission and Committee yet appointed on this subject had been thoroughly humbugged by the dockyard authorities; and, looking at the small results which had accrued from these inquiries, he was inclined to think so too. As a man of business, he felt confident that if the same system were pursued by a manufacturer or a private builder as was maintained in the Royal yards, bankruptcy must very speedily ensue, and not one penny in the pound would be left to pay the creditors. It was a system rotten to the core, and ought to be at once put a stop to.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETread a letter from Mr. Pitcher, the builder of the vessels which were said to have been constructed so extremely cheap. It was dated Northfleet, July 1, 1859, and the writer contradicted a statement which he had seen in The Times, declaring that the expense for building a vessel of war in the merchant yards did not exceed the sum of £2 8s. per ton for shipwrights' labour. Mr. Pitcher said,—
"It should be understood that the ships alluded to were mere shells when sent to Her Majesty's yard at Chatham to be fitted as might be required, as the cost of such fittings would depend very much upon the service they were intended for. I am of opinion that the vessels built for the Government in private yards, when compared with those built in the Royal dockyards, according to the evidence published, amounts to very near the same sum for the total completion of the hull; for instance, in the labour for building about 13,500 tons of the gun-vessels at Northfleet, they cost on an average, complete, about £6 per ton."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was no answer to him to read a letter written a month before the Committee made their Report.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that the work in a private yard differed entirely from that executed in a Royal dockyard, and you got in the former a much worse article for the money you expended. As far as his experience Went, contract vessels were
2020
notoriously bad in every instance. He knew nothing more difficult than to keep contractors to the fair terms of their contract. We had seen ships handed over to the Government from private yards which were in a most disgraceful state from incomplete workmanship, which was concealed by several coats of paint. In his opinion, it was far better to pay £8 per ton for a good article than £4 for a bad one.
MR. LINDSAYobserved, that he had advanced no charges against the Royal yards, but had merely quoted a statement made by the Committee appointed by the Government themselves, four out of five of the members being officers in those very yards. It was said that ships built under contract were badly built; but did Her Majesty's ships never stand in need of repairs? Were they not, when at sea, constantly putting into port to be refitted? Did we hear of one of the Cunard or the Peninsular and Oriental Company's boats putting back in every press of wind and requiring large repairs? There were, of course, failings in all establishments, but he questioned very much whether there were so many defects in ships of the first class built in private yards as there were in vessels constructed in the Royal yards at a much higher cost to the country.
LORD LOVAINEreferred to some instances of defective workmanship in vessels built by contract.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that what the noble Lord had stated as to the defects in ships from private yards was perfectly true. It was only the other day that he saw a basket of copper bolts intended for Her Majesty's ship Caroline, which ought to have been eleven inches long, and were only five. Some of the ships built by contract during the last war had since come in for repairs, and it was then found that the planks which ought to have been bent round the bows by the aid of steam had been sawn half way through to facilitate warping. He left the Committee to consider what would be the fate of these vessels in a gale of wind.
MR. JACKSONwould like to know what kind of superintendence there could be for such things to be permitted? Three-fourths of the business of this country was done by contract; and he believed there were as honest men in the contracting world as there were noble Lords in the kingdom.
LORD LOVAINEwould only say this,

2021
that his experience in the navy had not been very long, but his impression decidedly was that there was a great disposition on the part of contractors to give very short measure indeed. Their work required the constant supervision of a most careful eye; and he appealed to any hon. Member acquainted with the subject to confirm his statement. The question of the damages sustained by the navy was an evasion of the original question, which related simply to the imperfection of the original work.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the noble Lord had not answered the question as to who attended to see whether the work was properly executed or not. If the pay—£400 or £500 a year—of the present superintendents was not sufficient, they ought to give more to get honest men—men who were above being bribed.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that the gallant Admiral's remarks had confirmed his statement in every respect.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the gallant Admiral had intimated that it was impossible to get an honest man for £500 a year. But the fact was, he had never heard of a man who ever trusted a contractor. This was not a question of impugning the honesty of the contractor; it was their way of transacting business; and the real defect was the want of proper superintendence at the Admiralty. He believed that the work was better done in the dockyards than anywhere else, and that the country got more for their money. He was, however, very much struck with the comparison instituted by the hon. Member for Sunderland between the wear-and-tear of ships in the navy and those on the lines of packet service. There could be no comparison between the two services in this respect.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYreferred to the different cost of vessels in different yards, and said that there was great anxiety to get new ships laid down at certain yards; it was even made a matter of political influence. Looking at the money wasted in times past, the Government ought now to practise economy.
MR. HENLEYwished to know whether it was true that a vessel going out with Admiral Keppel was obliged to put in at Portsmouth, and to be docked for repairs: was that vessel an old or a new vessel; and was it built by contract or otherwise?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied,
2022
she was a vessel built at one of Her Majesty's dockyards. She was going a very long distance, and it was desirable that she should be made as perfect as possible; therefore, when a slight leak was discovered in her stern, which would otherwise have scarcely been important enough for such treatment, the vessel was immediately taken into Portsmouth and examined.
MR. HENLEYasked again, was she a new or an old vessel?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, she was quite new. It had been said by various hon. Members that sufficient superintendence was not applied by the Admiralty. There were sometimes as many as a hundred vessels under repair or building at the same time, and if the Admiralty had to supply a superintendent for every bolt it would be found an impossibility to comply with such a requisition.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYpointed attention to a discrepancy in the cost of shipbuilding at Woolwich as compared with Sheerness, adding that there was a growing impression abroad that great waste prevailed in the Government dockyards, and that though Parliament voted the money it had nothing like an effective control over the economical expenditure of it.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, an inquiry was now pending as to the difference in cost.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbelieved the discrepancies in question were partly due to the different mode of measuring the work done in the various yards, and would be found not so great as they appeared to be. He adverted to the manifest superiority of the workmanship in Her Majesty's as compared with that in private dockyards, citing in proof of that the case of the Agamemnon, which on her return to Plymouth from her memorable voyage on laying the Atlantic telegraph cable, in which she was exposed to a terrific storm under circumstances altogether peculiar, and which would have resulted in the certain destruction of any ordinary ship, was found to require only a few trivial repairs.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSwished for further information as to the ships said to be of equal size but of unequal cost. Inquiry would probably show that there was much more work in some than in others. He thought an improved method of keeping the accounts desirable.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the Admiralty had had eight months to consider the charges in the report of the Committee to

2023
which such frequent reference had been made. Under these circumstances he should move that this Vote be reduced by £100,000; he ought to move that it be reduced by two-thirds.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, vessels should be able to keep company if they were to be of any service to each other in a fleet, and therefore it was most important they should be made both to sail and steam, and capable of bearing rough or fair weather with equal results.
LORD LOVAINEreferred to the gunboats built by contract, and quoted the opinion of a private builder to the effect that the cost was much the same in Government dockyards and in private yards. So far from the cost in private yards being only 48 s per ton, it was nearly £6 per ton, including all the fittings.
MR. LYGONalso spoke of the economy of the Government yards.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that no answer had yet been given by any Member of the Government to the discrepancy which had been pointed out between expenditure relatively in Government and private dockyards.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) were pressed to a division, he should be unable to support it, as he was unwilling, in the present state of public affairs, to withhold from the Government any sum of money which they declared to be necessary in order to carry out the proposed alterations and additions in the navy. At the same time he could not refrain from expressing regret that the Government were not disposed to pay more attention to the Report of the Dockyard Committee appointed by the late Board of Admiralty, which had deservedly attracted Considerable notice. In his opinion, the Gentlemen composing that Committee were entitled to the gratitude of the country for the ability and public spirit with which they had conducted their inquiries, and he was sorry that their proceedings should have been ignored in so unaccountable a manner, and that they themselves had been treated with such disregard by the present Board of Admiralty. The only official notice taken of their labours that he had seen consisted of a memorandum written by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and from its tone of discourtesy and sarcasm towards the Members of that Committee he was induced to think the noble Duke must rather have had in his mind the fact
2024
that the Committee had been appointed by his predecessors than any regard to the contents of their Report. He could account in no other way for the course pursued by the Board of Admiralty, who had entered into no explanations, but had continued to act just as if the Committee had never sat, or as if those startling statements which the House had heard that night had never been put forward. Entire disregard of such a document came with peculiarly bad grace from the noble Lord who now held the office of Secretary to the Admiralty, because no one had made such sweeping charges against extravagance in the dockyards as fell from him in the course of last year. He it was who was then loud in his complaints, and who told the House that in the course of the last eleven years £5,000,000 had been wasted by successive Boards of Admiralty. At the time he stated that the noble Lord was bound to sustain the charges which he had made, and he had given notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a Committee, before which the noble Lord could have come face to face with the parties against whom he brought the charges, and would have been compelled either to prove or to withdraw them. But just at that moment the change of Government took place, and the accusation in consequence was merely dealt with by an answer from the Surveyor of the Navy, Sir Baldwin Walker; though, in the absence of closer disproof, he must, in justice to the Committee, say that Sir Baldwin Walker's report entirely negatived the wild and loose assertions of the noble Lord. From the general and well-deserved character for fairness and plain dealing enjoyed by the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget), he expected that he would have had the generosity to state that on reflection he found those charges could not be substantiated; but instead of this, he had merely declared in general terms that he adhered to his former statement. He must say he thought the able and zealous labours of the Committee, which tended to throw great light on the important question of dockyard expenditure, had been but ill-requited.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, he was desirous of doing all that was possible to reduce the expenditure, but he could not support the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed to a division.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not allow the remarks of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) to

2025
pass unnoticed. So far from the Report of the Committee having been wholly ignored, it had received the careful attention of the Board of Admiralty, and many of their recommendations either had been, or were about to be, carried out. The right hon. Baronet had deprecated the tone of the Memorandum of the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty; but he was bound to say that the tone of the Report itself was somewhat offensive to the officers of the dockyards, against whom a very grave accusation was preferred. The Commissioners attributed many of the evils which they stated in detail "to the want of zeal and activity on the part of the officers of the yards." On going over the evidence he had been unable to discover upon what evidence they based this decision, and they themselves admitted that many of their recommendations were unsupported by evidence. The weight attaching to their Report was further shaken by the fact that one of the Commissioners refused to sign it. Then, with regard to the proposal for the appointment of a Committee and his meeting Sir Baldwin Walker face to face, everybody who knew him was aware that, though he would not shrink from it if it was thought proper, he had no desire to enter into any such encounter. This was a very adroit method of turning certain representations which he had made condemnatory of the system into an attack on one individual. It was a very old dodge, but fortunately it would not go down with the House of Commons. He distinctly denied that he had ever attacked Sir Baldwin Walker, and he was surprised that any Member should have imputed such a thing to him. He stated so last year when he was called upon to make the amende honorable to Sir Baldwin Walker. He declined to do so, simply because he had never made any attack or imputation against him. He had last year called the attention of the House to the great cost of shipbuilding, and to the total absence of anything like a detailed account of the expenditure under the Votes 8, 9, and 10. To ascertain the real cost was the great object of his Motion last year, and the present Board of Admiralty, as might be seen by a Return on the table, had done all in their power to promote that end.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, Sir Baldwin Walker had not only been attacked by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, but he had written an answer
2026
to those attacks. He (Sir Charles Napier) read to the House the attacks of the noble Lord, and he also read Sir Baldwin Walker's answers to them, from which it appeared that not one of the vessels referred to by the noble Lord had been altered by Sir Baldwin. He stated that only two vessels had been altered—the reasons for which he gave—and showed that the cost was not more than £500. The noble Lord spoke of £6,000,000 as unaccounted for; but Sir Baldwin Walker, in his reply, accounted for the whole of that sum, with the exception of £6,000. The noble Lord now thought proper to say that he had made no charges against Sir Baldwin Walker. Whom, then, did he attack? Sir Baldwin Walker, as Surveyor of the Navy, was the person responsible, and the charges could apply to no other. That gallant officer had done more for the navy, and the improvement of ships than any other person. The noble Lord ought to make an apology to Sir Baldwin Walker, and it would have been an honourable thing on the part of the noble Lord had he done so.
MR. JACKSON, in justice to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, explained that he had done everything in his power to give him facilities for bringing forward his Motion for a Commission to inquire into the expenditure of the dockyards, though as yet he had not been able to bring the Motion before the House.
MR. MONSELLwished to ask how it was that there was a large amount for wages to be spent in every harbour except that of Haulbowline, which was admirably adapted to make a good harbour, and which would, no doubt, have been much improved if it had been in England, instead of Ireland.
MR. BENTINCKthought that the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) had unnecessarily attacked the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, he recollected perfectly well, had stated in the speech in question that he had no intention to attack Sir Baldwin Walker.
COLONEL DICKSONremarked that this naval expenditure was growing frightful to contemplate, although he believed shipbuilding was carried on better in the Royal dockyards than in private yards. By way of coming to some practical conclusion on the matter, he should vote for the reduction of the Vote as proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He also concurred in the complaint of his

2027
right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) respecting the small amount of money expended on Haulbowline, which he thought was utterly disproportioned to the large amount of taxation contributed by Ireland, and the unrivalled natural capabilities of some of her harbours.
Motion made, and Question,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,310,681 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge of Wages to Artificers, Labourers, and others employed in Her. Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861."
put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) £63,686, Wages in Naval Establishments Abroad.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to an in-crease of £3,010 for the establishment at Hong Kong.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, it was obvious that the additional outlay was rendered necessary by the continuance of the Chinese war.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, an additional outlay upon the dockyard at Hong Kong necessitated the increased Vote.
Vote agreed to.
(5) £3,204,434 Naval Stores.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished to say a few words in answer to a very interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), made on a former evening, with respect to the supply of timber in the dockyards. The allegation of the right hon. Gentleman amounted, he thought, to this—that, whereas it was usual in former days to keep a three years' stock of shipbuilding timber on hand for seasoning, successive Boards of Admiralty had neglected their duty in not keeping up that stock, and had reduced their three years' stock to a two years' stock, and that within the last year or two it had been reduced to even less than that. He might say, in the first place, that this was rather an attack upon the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague (Sir J. Pakington), because it would, he believed, be found that in the Estimates of the late Administration no more money was taken for timber than was necessary to keep up a two years' stock at the ordinary consumption. He was, however, prepared to contend that a two years' stock was ample. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the evidence taken before the Committee on Dockyard Econo-
2028
my, in which certain dockyard authorities had complained that green timber was employed, and that certain ships were built of timber that had not been properly seasoned. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn the inference there from that the dockyard authorities themselves were of opinion that the Government did not keep up a proper stock of timber. If the right hon. Gentleman accused the Board of Admiralty of not keeping up an establishment of timber commensurate with the wants of the year, the answer must be that if the Admiralty went on building ships at the same rate as at present it would be manifestly necessary to increase the present establishment of timber. The expenditure of timber expected to take place during the present year was 60,000 loads, and the amount of stock at the commencement of this year was about the same amount—namely, 59,000 loads. In expectation that the consumption this year would be 60,000 loads, the Government had taken a sum of £500,000; so that at the end of this year there would still be two years' stock in hand for ordinary consumption, namely, about 30,000 loads. It might be necessary to explain that circumstances had very much changed since the days when three years' stock was required. The hard foreign woods now used were then comparatively unknown. The English oak was then principally used, and it required greater seasoning than foreign wood. It was cut and purchased, upon the spot, and was brought to the dockyards without loss of time; while Italian oak, for example, was cut in a hot climate, the voyage took a certain time, and it was partly seasoned on its way. Two-thirds of the shipbuilding wood now used in the dockyards did not require seasoning; it was foreign timber, like African oak, teak, and mahogany, and therefore no comparison could be made between the stocks formerly in hand and the stocks kept at present. The right hon. Gentleman said that the officers of the dockyard declared that timber ought to be kept three years in stock. [Mr. HENLEY: Some say four.] Well, there was a difference of opinion on that subject. A gentleman, who was an eminent shipbuilder and owner, Mr. Green, who had 30,000 tons of shipping of his own, said, that two years were quite sufficient to season English oak timber, and that it deteriorated after that period. If this were so it was a strong argument for not keep-

2029
ing a stock for more than two years' consumption in hand. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if the Government had only to ask the House for an additional £100,000 and to buy so many thousand more loads of timber. But if they asked Parliament for a larger sum they would not get the timber. The stock of timber was restricted, and the Government could not get above a certain quantity. No doubt, if circumstances were pressing and the Government were obliged to purchase without regard to price, they might obtain an addition to the present supply; but it was no easy matter to increase the quantity of such timber as they required. He admitted that it would be a very great thing if the Government had the means of keeping up a larger supply of timber. It would be unwise for him to state exactly what the Admiralty were doing in this respect, but they were using every possible endeavour to get a more regular and better supply of timber from abroad. Injustice to the dockyards, he ought to state that when hon. Members heard of the green wood employed, it was generally confined to one particular timber in a ship which it was very difficult to find at all of a sufficient size, much less of seasoned timber—he referred to rudder pieces. Take a first-rate for example, of which the Admiralty were building a good many. The rudder-piece of a first-rate must be a piece of English oak. It must be 26 feet long and 28 inches square. It had happened lately that as many as six of these rudder pieces were cut up and found defective, for the trees being necessarily of great age were found rotten at the heart. Of teak there was a very large supply, which required no seasoning. One reason why it was not desirable to increase the stock of timber was that we were now building four iron-cased ships; and though he was not prepared to say whether they would fulfil all that was anticipated from them, yet, if they were successful, probably not so many line-of-battle ships would be required, and it was the line-of-battle ships which required the large establishments of timber, for there never was any difficulty in finding timber for frigates, corvettes, and vessels of a smaller class. If these iron-cased ships succeeded, it would be unwise to do what the right hon. Gentleman wished—to increase our establishments of timber merely because we had consumed more than our ordinary quantity within the last two years. He had often heard
2030
it stated that the Admiralty did not go to work properly to get their timber cheaply; that they confined themselves to one or two contractors, who charged their own prices. No doubt from the necessity of the case, the contracts did come into the hands of two or three great contractors, who might meet and arrange about the price; but if any landed proprietor or other person of respectability, having a large quantity of proper timber on his estate, or for sale, were to come and make an offer to the Admiralty, they would be very glad to enter into a bargain with him.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had given no opinion as to the time timber took to season; he only quoted that of certain officers of Her Majesty's dockyards, and he was quite willing to leave it to be settled between them and the private authorities the noble Lord had quoted, whether it took two years or four years to season oak timber of the largest dimensions. He had not blamed any Board of Admiralty, but had expressly guarded himself from doing so, for he had read the statement of the Storekeeper General as to the enormous difficulty of getting timber, and he could not put it stronger than he had done. What he complained of, however, was that the First Lord should have put it on record that 60,000 loads was a sufficient quantity to keep in stock. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty stated most distinctly that we ought to keep two years' consumption in stock; but 60,000 loads would not suffice for that. Sir Baldwin Walker had stated that the proper yearly addition to the navy was three ships of the line, three frigates, and four small vessels, the construction of which would take 32,000 loads of timber; adding to that 10,000 loads for necessary repairs, they would have the total yearly consumption of timber at 42,000 loads; and, as according to the statement of the noble Lord, it would require two years' consumption in stock, it was plain that 60,000 loads was not sufficient. The noble Lord would not find any indication in his speech that three or four years' seasoning was necessary for all kind of timber. African oak, teak, and mahogany, perhaps, he knew could be used almost as soon as imported, and the Italian and Sardinian oak required less seasoning than the English oak; but every master shipwright would tell them that English oak required three or four years' seasoning, nor would ny of them venture to say that large 15-inch square timber

2031
would be ready to use in two years. The noble Lord admitted that it would be very desirable to obtain as large a stock of timber as possible for the navy, which was all that he (Mr. Henley) contended for, and he was glad to find that their views did not differ on the real point, though they might as to the actual supply.
MR. BENTINCKhad already stated that in his opinion the work done in the dockyards was better than that which was done elsewhere, and that we got our money's worth out of those establishments; but he wished to call attention to an item that related to work done out of dockyard by contract—he meant the anchors and chain cables. If he was rightly informed the Admiralty paid a very much larger sum for those articles than they ought to pay. Although there had been a great diminution in the price of iron, there had been no deduction in that paid by the Admiralty to the contractor. He quite admitted that the articles supplied were of the best quality, but that was no reason for paying a much larger sum than they were called on to pay. Great improvements had been made in the machinery used in the construction; but, inasmuch as the Admiralty had obtained no advantage whatever from that circumstance an unnecessary and therefore an objectionable expenditure of money had prevailed in this department. He wished to refer to a Return he had moved for, not with a view of advocating Mr. Trotman's anchors, but to show the price at which the best anchors could be manufactured in the best yards by the best firms. He found that the cost of seventeen anchors of various sizes, made of the best material, was £1,428; while the contract price for the same weight of anchors supplied to the Admiralty, and which were in no way superior, was £3,434, or nearly treble the amount. Amongst other things there was a tender advertised to supply to Her Majesty's navy iron chain-cables and anchors thereto. It was stated that parties intending to make a tender were requested to take notice that the whole supply would not be given to any one firm, but the contract would be equally divided amongst three firms. Now, he was given to understand that so far from that arrangement being carried out, the whole of the contracts had been given to the one and the same firm since 1841 up to the present time, in direct contradiction to the wording of the tenders asked for from the public, and inviting persons to come forward. He be-
2032
lieved a discrepancy also existed as to the prices of anchors and chains, between those furnished to the Admiralty and to private yards. He wanted to know whether his information was correct as to those facts.
MR. RIDLEYthought it would be a fault on the part of the Government to incur the expense of providing too large a stock of timber for building line-of-battle ships, when the more powerful means of destruction which modern science provided might soon render ships built of timber no longer available for war. They should consider the advantage of building iron ships to meet the improved gunnery of the present day. He wished to know whether the item of £722,000 for timber was for the sole purpose of building line-of-battle ships of timber?
SIR CHARLES NAPIER, referring to the sum of £798,500 for steam machinery, suggested that the ships' bunkers should be furnished with some apparatus for taking in water, when the stock of coal was consumed, in order that the ship might not become so extremely light as to be unable to remain in the proper position. It would not be difficult to provide some apparatus for doing this, and he had experienced the disadvantage of not doing so when he came home in the Duke of Wellington, from the Baltic.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEcalled attention to another item of considerable magnitude for the building of iron-cased ships, steam vessels, and gun-boats by contract. The noble Lord had said that four iron-cased ships were now building. Did they include all under that head? The Vote taken for that item last year, including the Supplementary Estimate, was £500,000. In the present year it was £640,000, making no less in the two years than £1,140,000. Now, those iron-cased ships had never been tried in actual war: the sum was, therefore, a large one to expend for a mere experiment. He viewed those experiments with no feeling of satisfaction. He thought that they were very apt to make great mistakes in those experiments upon ships as well as upon fortifications. He looked upon the national defences of the country as being best supplied by highly-trained seamen and soldiers. We could not have too many of them. Now the noble Lord ought to consider in what way those experiments of iron-cased ships were to be tested. He knew that France was building ships of that description; but that was not a reason why we

2033
should embark in any blind system merely for the purpose of coping with France. He wanted to know the number of those iron-cased ships that had been or were to be built, how many steam vessels, and whether there were to be any gun-boats in addition?
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, it was the opinion of scientific men that the new inventions in gunnery would alter the whole system of ship-building. He wished to impress on the Government the importance of keeping in view those improvements, in order to guard against not only a useless expenditure of the public money, but also the sacrifice of their seamen's lives by the sinking of a vessel in consequence of a shot through her timbers.
MR. FREELANDinquired, whether at those ports at which the fleet might be expected to rendezvous, such as Milford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Sheerness, arrangements had been made for improving our coal depôts, and for getting the coal on board, in case of an emergency, with the least possible delay? He understood that at Portland great efforts had been made to effect these objects. He had, however, been informed that what had been done at Portland must still be regarded as an experiment—that it was still a question whether it was best and most economical that the great ships should go to the coal, or that the coal should be brought to the great ships. He wished to know whether the subject was engaging the attention of the Government? No doubt the question of expense was a serious matter; but it was rumoured that large sums were about to be spent on fortifications, some of which were said to be of questionable value. In the event of war our wooden walls would have to bear the brunt of battle before our stone walls could be required for defence, and he would respectfully submit it to the consideration of the Government whether a portion of the sum to be expended on fortifications might not be advantageously applied to the improvement of our means of getting coals shipped, in case of emergency, with the least possible delay.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) with regard to the putting coals on board men-of-war, said that they had not made any great progress with regard to the mechanical contrivances for the hoisting of coal on board our ships. Our men of war, however, had naturally a large crew on board, and it was marvellous
2034
the amount of coals they were capable of conveying into the ship within a very short space of time. They had at Woolwich a very clever machine, which lifted the coal by steam power, and dropped it into the ship. There was one also on board a coal depot at Portland. With respect to the anchors and chains, it was quite true that the Admiralty had but one manufacturer, the firm of Brown and Lennox; but the reason was that the prices which that firm charged for anchors were lower than those of other manufacturers who had offered their anchors for sale to the Admiralty. The others he would refer to were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Trotman. The price charged by Brown and Lennox for an anchor suitable for a 90-gun ship was £2 16 s. 6d. per cwt., whereas Mr. Rogers charged £2 18 s., and Mr. Porter £3 5s. Anchors of a smaller class were sold by Messrs. Brown and Lennox at £2 3s., and by Mr. Rogers at £2 4s., while Mr. Porter charged £2 8s., and Mr. Trotman £2 10 s. This showed that the anchors which were purchased of Brown and Lennox were of the cheapest quality. He did not mean to say, however, that it would be unadvisable to consider the propriety of opening this contract. The hon. Member for Sunderland, however, when he said the other night that, taking the average of four different classes of anchors, the Admiralty were paying 180 s. per cwt., made a great mistake. He added the prices of the four different classes together, in order to take the average, but he forgot to divide the amount again by four, so that he made the result four times as great as it really was. The real average, instead of being 180 s., was 45 s., which made rather an important difference. With regard to the question that was put by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir W. Jolliffe), who asked what was the cost of these enormous ships that were being built, there were four iron-cased ships that would cost £734,325, and their engines would cost £210,075; making a total of £944,400, merely for the hull and machinery of the four vessels. Then there were 6 sloops of 200 horse power, which would cost £88,574, and their engines £60,000. There were 12 gun-vessels of 80 horse power, which would cost £119,255 for the hulls, and £48,960 for the machinery; and there were 10 gun-boats of 60 horse power each, costing £62,383, and their engines £32,235; making a total of 6 ships, 12 gun-vessels, and 10 gun-boats,

2035
costing £271,000, and £141,000 for their engines and machinery; and the grand total of the vessels building by contract, including their engines, but exclusive of fitments, was a cost of £1,355,875. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ridley) asked what wooden vessels they were building? There were 11 line-of-battle ships, 5 corvettes, 15 sloops, and 23 gun-vessels and gun-boats.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the evidence produced before the Select Committee over which, he had lately presided showed that as far as anchors and cables were concerned, the Royal Navy was admirably served, He wished to know whether it was proposed that the navy should be supplied with apparatus for the consumption of smoke. He believed that machinery for the perfect attainment of that object could now be obtained.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had the same objection to this Vote that he had to some of the others, namely, that they did not get full value for their money. They paid for their anchors 94 s. per cwt., and he believed that was 100 per cent more than they could get anchors and cables of equal quality for. Until he called the attention of the House two years ago to the subject, he believed the Admiralty were under the impression that there were only two firms in England who could construct steam-engines for ships; but now there were a dozen firms tendering, and he believed that the same result would follow if they wanted the leading firms to tender for the supply of anchors and cables.
LORD LOVAINEasked, whether it was intended to introduce into the navy the use of super-heated steam?
MR. H. A. BRUCEasked what course was taken with regard to the tenders for coals. It was well known that from the same pit, coals of various qualities were obtained, and the great steam-packet companies had agents to see that they got the coal from the vein they wanted it from. Government ought to adopt the same course. He did not think, however, that public tender was the best mode of obtaining coal. It was perfectly notorious that the best coal was not supplied to Her Majesty's navy.
MR. CORRYagreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that 60,000 loads of timber were not a sufficient establishment for the dockyards. Although it was true, as stated by the Secretary to the Admiralty, that foreign
2036
timber did not require seasoning to the same degree as English timber, yet, as our supply from abroad might be interrupted at any time, care ought to be taken to have a large stock always on hand.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that a great discrepancy existed between the statement he had made on a former occasion with regard to the price of anchors and the answer of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. He understood the noble Lord to say that the prices under the Admiralty contract were lower than those offered by other parties. In 1841 the prices of anchors offered to be supplied to the Admiralty appeared from a list he had in his hand to be 20 s. per cwt., while the price of the Admiralty contract was 44 s. per cwt., or rather more than double.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the case was so in 1841, but since then the contract prices had been greatly reduced. Three frigates were now being fitted with engines with an apparatus for superheating steam. An engineer had recently been appointed to inspect every cargo of coal put on board a ship, and ascertain that the coal was of the denomination specified in the contract, was properly screened, and was free from dust. He made a weekly report, and since his appointment there had been no complaints of the coal supplied to the fleet. The Admiralty were willing to adopt any economical plan for consuming smoke, and at the present moment several vessels were fitted with various descriptions of smoke-consuming apparatus.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTobserved that about £400,000 was to be expended on coal in the ensuing yean He thought that stringent orders should be given that ships should not use steam except when compelled to do so; for, besides the economy, it would be of great advantage both to officers and men to have a little more practice under canvass.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished for some further information with respect to the four iron steam-vessels ordered by the Admiralty. The first of these vessels was ordered by the late Government, and he understood the second was to be of the same class, size, and character. He had been informed, however, that the two others were to be different in size and character, and he wished to know what would be their tonnage and the strength of their iron coating. He should also be glad to hear when these vessels would be finished.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid that he should be glad to see at the Admiralty any firms prepared to make proposals with respect to anchors and chains. With respect to the iron-cased ships the one ordered by the right hon. Baronet ought to have been launched by this time; but some delay had occurred in consequence of the novel construction of the sternpost, the one which was first put in not proving strong enough. He believed that she would be launched in the beginning of July. With regard to the others, he was not prepared to say when they would be ready, but all of them were contracted for. The tonnage of the Warrior and the Black Prince was 6,035 tons each; and of the Resistance and the Defence 3,668 tons each. The Warrior and the Black Prince would carry thirty-six guns, and the two smaller ones, the Resistance and the Defence, would carry sixteen guns. Their scantling was the same, and there was the same thickness in the iron plates.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEcomplained that the engineers in the navy set their faces against smoke-consuming apparatus, and hence inventors did not get fair play.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c, REPEAL BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BENTINCKobjected to proceeding with the measure at so late an hour (twenty-five minutes past twelve o'clock), and moved that the debate be adjourned.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that if they were to make any progress at all in business there was no reason why they should not now proceed with Sir John Barnard's Act Repeal Bill. The question involved had been debated twice before, and he must persist in going on with the measure.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 156: Majority 89.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
  MR. BOVILLsaid, that three totally different explanations of the object of that measure had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Solicitor General respectively. The principle of the Bill was an important one—namely, whether gambling of the worst description should be sanctioned by the Legislature, and as it was impossible that it could be duly discussed at that late hour he should move that the House do now adjourn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion, after the unmistakeable proof they had just had of the sense of the House on the subject. The importance of this Bill had been greatly exaggerated. The Act was only suggestive of qui-tam actions and bills in Chancery. It had been stated, and the statement remained uncontradicted, that the Gambling and Wagering Act provided an efficient guard against gambling and wagering, so far as by law the prevention could be effected. Therefore, in repealing this Act, they would only place the British funds on the same footing as every other kind of property. It was absurd to enact that it should not be lawful to contract for the sale of property not in the possession of the person contracting to sell it. Was a merchant not to contract on the 1st of January to deliver to another on the 1st of February, cotton, or indigo, or wool, or sugar, unless it was in his possession at the time of the contract? It was lawful to do so at present with regard to all property excepting the British funds. Lord Tenterden once laid it down that such a contract was void in law to whatever kind of property it related. That decision was speedily reversed, and the observation was made from the Bench that if such a rule were adopted it would be fatal to half the commerce of London. Why did not the learned Gentleman propose to extend the Act to every other kind of executory bargain? Either the Act ought to be repealed or it ought to be extended. He trusted that the House would proceed to business, and pass its judgment on the matter instead of interposing these delays.
  Motion made and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 153: Majority, 93.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  An HON. MEMBER An HON. MEMBER moved that the debate be adjourned.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYremarked, that whatever the House might think, the public would say the object of these Motions was to get rid of the third reading of the Church Rate Bill which stood lower on the paper. The House had passed judgment on the measure, and the sooner the Bill was in the other House the better.
  MR. ADDERLEYrose to order. The hon. Baronet was not entitled upon the Motion for Adjournment to speak upon a Bill which was not the subject of the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Baronet was not out of order.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY: The debate on Sir John Barnard's Act was made the means of attacking the Church Rate Bill. There must be other divisions; but let it be clearly understood that they were church rate divisions.
  MR. COLLINSprotested against the assertion that the divisions were on the church-rate question. He had voted twice, and both times on Sir John Barnard's Act. It was too late to go on with the discussion at one o'clock in the morning.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, that in making the Motion for adjournment the subject of church rates had never entered into his mind, but he moved it in order that the principle of the Bill of Sir John Barnard might be fully and fairly discussed. The Solicitor General had expounded a principle totally different from that of the Secretary of the Treasury, who told them it was intended by the Bill to legalize transactions in time bargains, which were really gambling transactions, which was a statement entirely different from that made by the Solicitor General.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEthought the hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make his speech in a few minutes, and the House might dispose of the Bill that evening.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he should be sorry to be misunderstood to be in favour of Sir John Barnard's Act because he had voted in the minority upon the last division. He so voted because he thought that those who objected to it were entitled to express their opinions upon it, and it had been an under-
  2040
  stood rule that no opposed business should be taken after twelve o'clock.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong as to the rule he supposed to prevail, for if no opposed business were taken after twelve o'clock the Government would not be able to proceed with their measures. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock was perfectly willing to go on with the Church Rate Bill at this hour. He denied that the clear and lucid statement of the Solicitor General was at all in contradiction with that given by the Secretary to the Treasury. A zealous minority might induce a prudent majority, to think that the best course was to give way and go home, but the public took its own notice of such proceedings. After the determination that had been exhibited, however, he should, for the comfort of the House, give way, and would not now proceed with the Bill, but he must deny that it was at all a measure for the encouragement of gambling. It was one simply to legalize transactions on the Stock Exchange, which had long been virtually legal.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYconsidered that those who had a conscientious objection to the Bill had not been fairly dealt with. The effect of the Bill would be to legalize a system of gambling against law and morality, and the matter ought to be fully considered before Sir John Barnard's Act was repealed. The assimilation to an executory contract for goods was quite inconsistent, and wanting in analogy.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNY SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved the third reading of the Church Rates Abolition Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not believe that the hon. Baronet was serious in proposing to take that stage of the Bill at so late an hour. There was no wish to offer anything like a factious opposition to it, but it could not be expected that so important a Bill could be read a third time without discussion at half-past 1 o'clock. He moved that the debate be adjourned.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he could not consent to postponing the Question to that day three months, which would practically be the case. He resisted the adjournment unless the Government would give him a morning sitting.
  MR. BENTINCKcould not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman connected Sir J. Barnard's Act with any opposition to the Church Rates Bill. He took the course he had adopted because he thought the proposal an immoral one.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsuggested whether there would be any objection to taking the debate on Tuesday morning.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 131: Majority 55.
  Question again proposed "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. LYGONthen moved the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 124: Majority 51.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsuggested that the third reading of the Bill should be adjourned to Friday week, which was the first open day.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYannounced that he would follow his original intention of proceeding with the Bill on the first available opportunity, and he would therefore put down the third reading for to-morrow evening.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.—"That the Debate be adjourned till Friday next, at Twelve of the Clock."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.